SSC - 2020-06-16 - OPEN THREAD 156.25 + SIGNAL BOOST FOR STEVE HSU - Comments

23 Jun 2020 09:38:17 UTC
Original
history←priornext→
All snapshots from host archive.org
from host slatestarcodex.com
Webpage Screenshot
HO ME
 AB OU T / T OP P OS TS
 PS YC HI AT - LIS T
 AR CH IV ES
 MEET UP S
 MI ST AK ES
 CO MM EN TS
 AD VERT IS E
 OP EN T HR EA D
CO MM EN TS F EED RS S FEED
Slate Star Codex

ONLY TEN MORE YEARS TILL THE TURCHIN CYCLE REVERSES! HANG IN THERE, PEOPLE!

OPEN THREAD 156.25 + SIGNAL BOOST FOR STEVE HSU
PO ST ED ON JU NE 16 , 2020 BY A READ ER
Normally this would be a hidden thread, but I wanted to signal boost this request for help by
Professor Steve Hsu, vice president of research at Michigan State University. Hsu is a friend of the
blog and was a guest speaker at one of our recent online meetups – some of you might also have
gotten a chance to meet him at a Berkeley meetup last year. He and his blog Information
Processing have also been instrumental in helping me and thousands of other people better
understand genetics and neuroscience. If you’ve met him, you know he is incredibly kind, patient,
and willing to go to great lengths to help improve people’s scientific understanding.
Along with all the support he’s given me personally, he’s had an amazing career. He started as a
theoretical physicist publishing work on black holes and quantum information. Then he transitioned
into genetics, spent a while as scientific advisor to the Beijing Genomics Institute, and helped
discover genetic prediction algorithms for gallstones, melanoma, heart attacks, and other
conditions. Along with his academic work, he also sounded the alarm about the coronavirus early
and has been helping shape the response.
This week, some students at Michigan State are trying to cancel him. They point an interview he
did on an alt-right podcast (he says he didn’t know it was alt-right), to his allowing MSU to conduct
research on police shootings (which concluded, like most such research, that they are generally not
racially motivated), and to his occasional discussion of the genetics of race (basically just repeating
the same “variance between vs. within clusters” distinction everyone else does, see eg here). You
can read the case being made against him here, although keep in mind a lot of it is distorted and
taken out of context, and you can read his response here.
Professor Hsu will probably land on his feet whatever happens, but it would be a great loss for
Michigan and its scientific community if he could no longer work with them; it would also have a
chilling effect on other scientists who want to discuss controversial topics or engage with the
public. If you support him, you can sign the petition to keep him on here. If you are a professor or
other notable person, your voice could be especially helpful, but anyone is welcome to sign
regardless of credentials or academic status. See here for more information. He says that time is of
the essence since activists are pressuring the college to make a decision right away while everyone
is still angry.
This was supposed to be a culture-war free open thread, but I guess the ship has sailed on that
one, so, uh, just do your best, and I’ll delete anything that needs deleting.
THIS ENTRY WAS POSTED IN UNCATEGORIZED AND TAGGED OPEN. BOOKMARK THE PERMALINK OR LINK WITHOUT
COMMENTS.
← The Vision Of Vilazodone And Vortioxetine
Slightly Skew Systems Of Government →
LEAVE A REPLY
You must be logged in to post a comment.
1,124 RESPONSES TO OPEN THREAD 156.25 + SIGNAL BOOST FOR
STEVE HSU
Reverse order
1. ana53294 says:
June 18, 2020 at 3:46 am ~new~
Science fiction of the past used to imagine self-cleaning houses and no housework. I dream of a
future like that.
My prediction after my cleanest housemate left:
In the future, when we have robots that clean the house, windows, get rid of all the dust, etc.,
there will be people who have all this devices, and live in acceptably clean houses, there will be
people who will use the machines and then use an extra dose of bleach to satisfy their OCD, and
there will be people who will turn off the equipment to save electricity and soap, and will continue
living in a dirty house.
The third type really puzzles me. Why leave a pile of dirty dishes in the sink when you could fill the
dishwasher, push a button and then go on your merry way? It’s not like we save that much money
on electricity. It’s true that the stupid way the water bills work here don’t encourage saving money
at all (we pay a fixed amount based on the number of people who live here), but still, it’s not like it
consumes that much electricity. And at the end you get nice and dry clean dishes.
Why do so many people not use a dishwasher even when they have it? For me, personally, I hate
washing dishes so much having a dishwasher is a criterion when looking for a house. I understand
some people find washing dishes relaxing, whatever, let them enjoy it. But those who don’t like it,
and still insist on doing it manually, I really don’t understand. It’s not like they are OCD
perfectionists, either; the dishwasher washes better than they do.
I’ve asked, but my housemates haven’t been able to give me a satisfactory explanation. They say
it’s about money, but when I calculated the amount of hot water they use, and how much it costs
to heat that vs. the cost of the electricity of the dishwasher (the dishwasher costs about the same,
since we don’t save money on water), they continue piling dishes in the sink. It’s not about money,
or my arguments would convince them. They haven’t been able to give me a better explanation
yet.
Log in to Reply Hide
o B_Epstein says:
June 18, 2020 at 4:05 am ~new~
No idea about them in particular, but dishwashers, by themselves, do not wash better than I do.
For starters, anything left to dry will run the risk of having a few pieces of food stuck to it. Streams
of water do not beat rubbing. Then there’s the fact that if you’re doing no pre-washing, even a
basic one, you will have to maintain your dishwasher more. Finally, anything with tiny holes (think
sifters) will not be washed as well if left purely to the dishwasher.

Log in to Reply Hide ↑
 ana53294 says:
June 18, 2020 at 4:13 am ~new~
I’m not saying dishwashers wash better than people who care about washing dishes. But people
who care about washing dishes don’t leave a pile of dirty dishes in the sink (because, as everybody
knows, it makes it harder to wash later).
I’m not arguing against those who prefer to wash dishes immediately after lunch, to have always
spotless dishes in the house. Or put a lot of elbow grease into washing dishes and get better
results than the machine. I get that. It’s those that half ass it but do more work for less results
that I don’t understand.
Despite my love for the dishwasher, I don’t think it works well for pots and pans (because it’s not
good enough; when I have my own house I’ll have one of those > $1000 Bosch machines). So I
clean my pots immediately.

 B_Epstein says:
June 18, 2020 at 4:20 am ~new~
I do have a pretty good Bosch, and it still doesn’t work perfectly well on pots and pans. As for
turning the dishwasher on immediately – I don’t always have the time or energy right after a meal.
You do have to load it, preferably not completely at random.

2. Deiseach says:
June 18, 2020 at 2:35 am ~new~
A couple of things: first, Ireland has been awarded a temporary seat on the U.N. Security Council.
Very nice, now can anyone explain to me why this matters, given that it’s the Big Five who are
wielding all the power and making all the decisions? There must be some reason why our
government wanted this plum, but why is it a plum? What can any small nation do in two years?
Second, genetics headlines from the ancient past! We’re a descendant combination of incestuous
disabled hunter-gatherers, apparently? 😁

o Pandemic Shmandemic says:
June 18, 2020 at 3:07 am ~new~
It’s a plum because you get to garner favor from other countries in exchange for supporting
resolutions that benefit them or damage their rivals and suppressing the opposite ones. While it’s
true that each of the big five can veto any resolution individually they still need a majority to pass
resolutions.
3. Aapje says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:20 pm ~new~
From 1969 to 2003, the (municipal) Pedagogical Center Berlin intentionally placed children with
pedophiles, based on the theory that it would teach pedophiles to care for someone and would give
troubled youth the experience of being loved. These men were paid the normal allowance for foster
care. Stories from children placed with these men suggests that a typical result was the sexual
abuse of these boys.
There was a political angle, where the psychology professor running the program believed that
‘liberating children’s sexuality’ would unleash energies that would in turn lead to political protest
and the true democratization of German society. In other words, this was part of a far-left agenda
(as well).
This started off as a secret program, as it violated the law to place children with convicted
pedophiles, but after the statute of limitations expired on the earliest placements in 1989, the
professor wrote a report for the Berlin Senate Department for Women, Family and Youths. This is
just like a national ministry or state department, but at the municipal level. It appears that at the
time, an SPD (social-democrat party) senator was in charge of this department. Neither this
politician nor the government bureaucrats who ran the department put a halt to this program.
4. bean says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:59 pm ~new~
Today at work, I had to do some training, and they were talking about determinations that had to
be made by Authorized Individuals (AI). “If you want to determine the status of [redacted], consult
an AI.” I am amazed that even a large company didn’t notice how weird that sounds.
5. GearRatio says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:41 pm ~new~
In happier news, this happened.
6. salvorhardin says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:26 pm ~new~
For several months now, in (IIUC) many US cities, there have been emergency childcare
arrangements made available by city governments for the children of “essential” workers. In San
Francisco, at least, these follow similar risk reduction rules to the summer camps that are now
opened up for everyone: a size-limited set of kids stay together, and with the same caregivers, for
at least some number of weeks at a time.
AFAICT we haven’t heard anything about significant COVID spread occurring through these
childcare arrangements. Is that absence of evidence clear enough to constitute evidence of
absence, i.e. evidence that it’ll be safe to put schoolkids together in these kinds of consistent
groups throughout the summer and into the fall? Or are there reasons to doubt, e.g. are the
circumstances of these childcares actually relevantly different, or is it too difficult to tell whether
spread is occurring through them, or is nobody actually looking because our institutions suck? My
guess is that if anything emergency childcare centers should be *more* likely to be sites of spread
than generally-available ones since essential workers face higher exposure risk than the general
population. But I don’t know if anyone has looked into this.

7. MisterA says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:50 pm ~new~
Is the site becoming almost unusably slow for anyone else? There is a lag of seconds when typing
or scrolling on both browser and PC.

o anonymousskimmer says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:04 pm ~new~
No.
o Trofim_Lysenko says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:44 pm ~new~
I have notable issues with the very large open threads on my android phone, but I attributed that
to it being a fairly stock phone and those being very large threads interacting with the “x
comments since” widget. I haven’t noted any issues on my PC.

o Plumber says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:11 pm ~new~

@MisterA,
That’s been the case for me for a couple of years now when I’m “logged in”, usually the site and
posting get slower the more comments a thread has, logging out speeds it up, often I’ll compose in
an e-mail field, log in and paste, then log back out.

 MisterA says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:17 pm ~new~
Interesting, will give that a try, thanks!

o Clutzy says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:22 pm ~new~
Your browser?
8. Atlas says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:07 pm ~new~
Hot take: I don’t think I really agree with the popular idea of “Woke Capitalism.” (As expressed by
e.g. Razib Khan on a recent episode of his new podcast.)
I don’t disagree that corporations are increasingly woke now. I just don’t think that wokeness is
either being driven by the business world (at least outside of news media) or particularly beneficial
to it. In global perspective, if you look at Amy Chua’s books World on Fire and Political Tribes, re-
distributive politics are certainly either compatible with or being driven substantially by identity
politics in many places, e.g. in Latin America. I think the media, non-governmental activism
organizations and academia are where woke politics are being created. As the push from there
convinces more people, they exercise more woke values in interacting with the corporate world,
which makes it more woke. But corporations are, in my view, a lagging rather than leading
indicator here.
Also, I don’t think that socialism is necessarily a great idea, so I don’t agree with the contrarian
take that wokeness is bad because it allegedly stops the materialistic socialist left, which is the
good left, from taking power. In any case, the Democratic Party has, for better or worse, moved
quite substantially to the left on economic issues in recent years, as the fact that Warren and
Sanders were leading presidential primary candidates would suggest. (I think Warren sort of
attempted, without much success, to fuse the identity politics and economic populism energy of the
left—“I’m going to break up/regulate the big banks and I’m doing representation!”)
o Well... says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:25 pm ~new~

I don’t disagree that corporations are increasingly woke now. I just don’t think that wokeness is
either being driven by the business world (at least outside of news media) or particularly beneficial
to it. In global perspective, if you look at Amy Chua’s books World on Fire and Political Tribes, re-
distributive politics are certainly either compatible with or being driven substantially by identity
politics in many places, e.g. in Latin America. I think the media, non-governmental activism
organizations and academia are where woke politics are being created. As the push from there
convinces more people, they exercise more woke values in interacting with the corporate world,
which makes it more woke. But corporations are, in my view, a lagging rather than leading
indicator here.
This strikes me as uncontroversial, maybe even obvious. I have trouble seeing how anyone could
seriously say otherwise (though I’m open to hearing good arguments, yada yada). I would only add
that corporations do get into their own little wokeness arms races in which they might be said to be
“escalating wokeness under their own steam”, and it’s possible (but, I think, unlikely) that these
arms races could influence the bleeding edge of wokeness.

the Democratic Party has, for better or worse, moved quite substantially to the left on economic
issues in recent years, as the fact that Warren and Sanders were leading presidential primary
candidates would suggest.
I think you are accidentally substituting the “Democratic Party” here for “some critical mass of
people willing to vote for or donate to a Democrat candidate in a given presidential primary”.
o bullseye says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:29 pm ~new~

I don’t agree with the contrarian take that wokeness is bad because it allegedly stops the
materialistic socialist left, which is the good left, from taking power.
All my socialist friends are woke. The only woke vs. socialist conflict I can think of was a minor
incident four years ago when some African-Americans gave Bernie Sanders a hard time for not
putting enough emphasis on civil rights issues.
The big faction that’s been getting left out of the left is the labor unions. I think they’ve mostly
resigned themselves to supporting the establishment democrats, or have given up on politics
because neither party supports them. A few defected to Trump.

 Atlas says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:44 pm ~new~
All my socialist friends are woke. The only woke vs. socialist conflict I can think of was a minor
incident four years ago when some African-Americans gave Bernie Sanders a hard time for not
putting enough emphasis on civil rights issues.
One other example might be the Chapo Trap House/Current Affairs Bernie Sanders supporters vs.
somewhat more identity-politics weighted Elizabeth Warren supporters in the Democratic primary
(on the Internet at least). But I agree that there’s mostly a lot of overlap.
 Wrong Species says:

June 17, 2020 at 9:00 pm ~new~
The whole “woke vs socialists” thing just seems like a marriage of convenience between populist
conservatives who want to say that the left doesn’t care about the poor, and some center-left
people who want to use it to pummel white guys who don’t talk about identity politics enough.
Hillary Clinton effectively used identity politics against Bernie, but Elizabeth Warren didn’t. The
funny thing is that Biden never really got that treatment and he is way less woke than Bernie.
But yeah, socialists are generally to the left on both economic and social issues. Antifa isn’t filled
with neoliberal wonks.

 INH5 says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:37 pm ~new~
Hillary Clinton effectively used identity politics against Bernie, but Elizabeth Warren didn’t.
Remember the sexism accusation during the debates? Even if that didn’t make a difference, she
clearly tried.
The funny thing is that Biden never really got that treatment and he is way less woke than Bernie.
That depends on the context. Biden did say that “trans rights are human rights” in response to Joe
Rogan endorsing Bernie. IIRC he also dipped his toe into the whole “mean online Bernie Bros”
thing. These were clearly opportunistic, but that’s hardly unprecedented in politics.
But yeah, socialists are generally to the left on both economic and social issues. Antifa isn’t filled with
neoliberal wonks.
Antifa are overwhelmingly Anarcho-Communists. It’s hardly shocking that they’re on board with a
movement that includes weakening the power of state security forces as a central goal. On certain
other issues, such as gun control, they’re a lot further from the elite media consensus.
o Ketil says:
June 18, 2020 at 12:27 am ~new~

Hot take: I don’t think I really agree with the popular idea of “Woke Capitalism.” (As expressed by
e.g. Razib Khan on a recent episode of his new podcast.)
Your link doesn’t seem to contain any useful information on the subject, so I don’t know what you
are arguing against. I wouldn’t bring it up if it weren’t an issue I have with a lot of posts(ers) on
SSC: they name-drop some obscure or vague term, and then expect everybody to be completely
on board with what it means (to them).
So a plea to everybody who top posts: please take the trouble to spend a couple of sentences
introducing the topic. And to everybody responding, please cut and paste the stuff you respond to
and wrap it using the Quote button.

o Le Maistre Chat says:
June 18, 2020 at 12:28 am ~new~
Seconding “no one disagrees with this, Atlas.”
It seems intuitive to me that corporations are woke because you need a university degree to get a
job in corporate America, and US universities are the sort of place where being politically aware is
encouraged and the three positions that won’t get you expelled are supporting the Democratic
candidate, the Green Party, and anarcho-socialism. The universities are the brain cells sending
orders to corporations, the judiciary, the permanent bureaucracy, et al.
It’s Econ 101 that for every billion dollar corporation that builds brand loyalty and sales by
signaling leftism, there’s an opportunity for an X-million corporation in the same industry to builds
brand loyalty and sales by signaling rightism, and you solve for X by figuring out how much poorer
the Red tribe is than the Blue tribe. If this doesn’t happen, well, maybe the High Capitalist who
sees all those $20 bills on the sidewalk can’t find university-educated people with the right skills to
pick them up for him?

 INH5 says:
June 18, 2020 at 1:05 am ~new~
It seems intuitive to me that corporations are woke because you need a university degree to get a job
in corporate America, and US universities are the sort of place where being politically aware is
encouraged and the three positions that won’t get you expelled are supporting the Democratic
candidate, the Green Party, and anarcho-socialism. The universities are the brain cells sending
orders to corporations, the judiciary, the permanent bureaucracy, et al.
Because it’s not like there are enough “College Republican” clubs that people like Charlie Kirk can
organize cross-country college campus tours. Yes, there are limits to the Overton Window there too
(see the Groyper War of last year), but isn’t it a remarkable coincidence that advocating for
reducing taxes is allowed but advocating for reducing skilled legal immigration is not?
Yes, ideological enforcement is stricter on the fringe of the Right than that of the Left, but maybe
that has something to do with the fact that Republicans control a large majority of state
legislatures and have controlled at least one branch of Congress for most of the last 30 years,
meaning that a (from a corporate perspective) dangerously left-wing economic agenda has
basically no chance of being implemented? Whereas if Trump had actually lived up to his popular
image, he could have caused big problems for big business purely through executive orders, IE by
getting in an actual trade war with China, or putting the hammer down on businesses that employ
illegal immigrants (as opposed to merely making it harder for economically unproductive refugees
to enter the country).

It’s Econ 101 that for every billion dollar corporation that builds brand loyalty and sales by signaling
leftism, there’s an opportunity for an X-million corporation in the same industry to builds brand
loyalty and sales by signaling rightism, and you solve for X by figuring out how much poorer the
Red tribe is than the Blue tribe.
Only if there are enough righties using the platform in question to move the needle on sales. If
Twitter is mostly lefties, because a lot of righties still have Cable TV subscriptions and still mostly
get their news that way (Fox New’s ratings are at an all-time high, despite all of the cord-cutting
over the past decade), then there is basically no cost to posting empty virtue-signalling statements
on Twitter, because most of the righties you might be worried about alienating will never know
about it unless some pundit on Fox News decides to make a big deal out of it, and conservative
pundits have much bigger fish to fry at the moment.

9. Le Maistre Chat says:

June 17, 2020 at 5:15 pm ~new~
In non-US violent politics, soldiers from the two most populous states on Earth, which have nuclear
weapons, are killing each other without using their guns: only rocks and clubs.
I can’t help thinking of the rules against escalation in Edgar Rice Burroughs’s Mars romances.
o Wrong Species says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:45 pm ~new~
Reminds of that old quote attributed to Albert Einstein about World War IV being fought with sticks
and stones. Maybe he was just a world war too early.

o Atlas says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:13 pm ~new~
This could have interesting implications for my book review submission about the possible decline
of major war. “Sitting in my fallout shelter and watching the living envy the dead, I’m going to
tentatively conclude that the evidence suggests that major war has not in fact declined.”
In all seriousness, at a first glance I would put at least 95% odds that no conflict with more than
1000 deaths between India and China occurs this year.

 Aftagley says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:30 pm ~new~
I think 1000 is too large a margin to be meaningful for any kind of meaningful prediction.
If we have 999 people die on that border, we almost certainly have a war. If we have only another
30 or so die, we likely have a continuation of the current quasi-peace.

 Atlas says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:41 pm ~new~
I think 1000 is too large a margin to be meaningful for any kind of meaningful prediction.
I picked it because it’s often used as the threshold for deciding what is and isn’t a “war.” Granted
that it’s somewhat arbitrary, but I think it’s a decent cut-off for “border clashes” vs. “war.”
If we have 999 people die on that border, we almost certainly have a war. If we have only another
30 or so die, we likely have a continuation of the current quasi-peace.
The Sino-Soviet border clashes of 1969 resulted in ~1000 deaths without escalating into a full-on
war. And, according to Wikipedia at least, the 1962 small-scale war/glorified border clash between
China and India resulted in ~2000 deaths before stopping. So I think that it’s definitely possible to
retreat from doomsday (to tip my hand a bit).

10. Pepe says:

June 17, 2020 at 5:00 pm ~new~
My wife (a humanities prof.) just asked me about AI. Specifically, whether there is a book that
would provide a good introduction to the field. I know that might be very vague, but she basically
doesn’t know anything about the topic. Any suggestions? Thanks.

o Christophe Biocca says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:16 pm ~new~
Disclaimer: Computer Science background but by no means an expert on this topic.
AI is a very broad umbrella term, to the point that people will lump both neural networks and A*-
pathfinding in there despite having nothing in common.
Machine Learning is the more specific counterpart and is where lot of what’s in the news today
(Alpha Go, etc) is coming from (symbolic logic isn’t the hot field it was 50 years ago).
The other (potential) obstacle is that a lot of books are aimed at would-be practitioners.
http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/ is a pretty good book in that vein but it teaches both
the math and how to program a basic network. Not necessarily what she’s looking for.
 Pepe says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:34 pm ~new~
Yeah, not sure anything with math would work for her. I do think that the machine learning side of
things is what interests her. I will check the link though, thanks.
o Polycarp says:
June 18, 2020 at 12:12 am ~new~
I recommend that she read What Computers Still Can’t Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason by Hubert
L. Dreyfus.
11. BBA says:

June 17, 2020 at 4:49 pm ~new~
A silly quirk of New York law on private security: a security guard agency that contracts with
property owners to provide security services, if its guards wear police-style uniforms, must use
rectangular shoulder patches and metal badges to make it clear that the guards are not police
officers. But a property owner who directly employs security guards can use any design they want.
NYU’s “public safety officers”, for instance, wear uniforms much closer to police officers than to
guards from a third-party service like Allied-Universal, but they aren’t police officers and have no
particular legal authority. Some private universities have campus security departments with full
police powers, but NYU isn’t one of them.
(I’d like to show a picture of what the rectangular badges look like, but I can’t find any online – this
law is apparently just a New York thing. In real life, they look cheap and unofficial, which is the
point.)
Come to think of it, it’s odd that private security guards wear badges at all. A police badge
represents the authority to exercise the state’s monopoly on legitimate use of force. A security
badge represents the authority to, well, wear a badge. This is almost literally the case – per section
170.1 of the regulations I linked above, wearing a security guard’s uniform makes you a security
guard requiring a license, while without a uniform it’s a case-by-case determination of what your
primary job duties are. (Also, if you’re armed, you’re a guard, but being licensed as a guard
doesn’t mean you’re armed. The NYU guards aren’t. I don’t mean to launch a discussion of New
York’s restrictive gun laws, but they exist, and a security guard license doesn’t get you around
them like a police badge does.) It’s not often that “clothes make the man” has any legal weight,
but considering how a major purpose of security guards is just to be seen to be protecting the
property and thereby act as a deterrent, it almost makes sense… but honestly I’m still not totally
sure why this industry is regulated at all, or whether these regulations are effective in achieving
their purposes.
o sfoil says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:04 pm ~new~
I think you’re grasping towards the reason that it’s regulated the way it is: because it’s closely
related to the government’s use of its literal “armed forces” as a deterrent. On the one hand, you
don’t want security guards or their employers to act like they’re actual police officers…but on the
other hand, you want them to do one of the things we expect police officers to do (stand around
and intimidate potential miscreants in an official capacity). If the way that you accomplish the
latter is to engage in mimicry of the actual police, there should be some rules about how far you
can go.
 Well... says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:34 pm ~new~
Isn’t part of it also to kind of let everyone around know that you’re not exactly a civilian, and that
you have the authority to do guard-like things? Like, if security guards just wore polos and khakis,
anyone the guards had to intercede with would assume he was being accosted.
Which makes me realize: as far as I can recall, I’ve never personally witnessed bouncers throwing
someone out of a bar. I’ve seen bouncers though, and they’re never dressed anything like cops;
usually they’re in street clothes. So how, when bouncers throw people out of bars, can passersby
tell that the bouncers are bouncers doing their job and not mere goons pushing someone around?
 GearRatio says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:48 pm ~new~
The quick answer here is that bouncers are usually of a particular body type that doesn’t care
whether you’ve mistaken it for a goon or not.
The longer answer is that the bouncer’s utility is very likely maximized if he’s easily ignored right
up until he’s very large and very near you. The bar doesn’t want you to be very drunk but wants
you to buy a lot of drinks; that means the bar wants you to forget that there’s a large man who will
put hands on you if you’ve had too much to drink until it’s actually time for him to put hands on
you when you’ve had too much to drink.

 Well... says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:00 pm ~new~
The quick answer here is that bouncers are usually of a particular body type that […]
When I read this, I expected it to continue “most people can easily see is that of a bouncer.”
In other words, bouncers just look like bouncers and everyone knows a bouncer when they see
one.
It’s not where you ended up going, but I don’t think the sentence I imagined is all that far-fetched.
There definitely are people who look like bouncers but who are not bouncers, but they are
uncommon.
Hide ↑
 ltowel says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:54 pm ~new~
The answer here is simple – Bouncers are goons pushing someone around. If a random goon who
wasn’t a bouncer physically removed some drunkard from a bar, nobody would care (except maybe
the bouncers, because they have the monopoly on violence in the bar). Passersby in a bar area at
the time bouncers have to physically remove someone understand and expect that there will be
goons removing drunks and assholes from their establishments. There’s the shared social
understanding at a bar – if the large sober men decide that this person shouldn’t be in the bar any
more, you should listen to them – if it’s bullshit, don’t go back.

 Lambert says:
June 18, 2020 at 2:52 am ~new~
In the UK, security guards and bouncers all wear armbands with a little window that holds their ID
card.
It makes them instantly recognisable as someone who has the authority to manhandle you off the
premises, but who isn’t the police.

o sharper13 says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:11 pm ~new~
My experiences as a licensed security guard and security company owner are from western states,
not NY, and from a couple of decades ago, but I’d throw out a few things which might bear on
security guard licensing:
1. The primary purpose of licensing seemed to be to ensure guards at least had a minimal amount
of training in what they were legally allowed and not allowed to do. Things like in what situations
can you perform a citizens arrest (i.e. detain someone), when are you legally allowed to carry a
weapon and of what type, etc… Basically, you had to pass a test on that to get your license.
2. A secondary purpose was to make guards “officially” able to represent the property owner to the
general public. In some jurisdictions, unless they’re designated an officer of the company, random
employee isn’t legally allowed to do the same things a licensed security guard is allowed to do to
protect property and apprehend bad guys.
3. The main effect of most security guards (the ones who aren’t specialized, so the great masses of
them) is to act as a visual deterrent and observer. i.e. to convince people not to try anything illegal
and to take good notes/photos/video/etc… when someone does. Most unarmed security guards are
explicitly forbidden to physically restrain anyone, because no one wants their liability insurance
rates to depend on the decision-making capabilities of a young adult they hired for a few bucks
over minimum wage. (Armed guards, supervisors, specialized loss prevention teams, etc… are a
very different story.) As a result, the uniform itself becomes important because it fulfills most of
the visual deterrent portion of the job.

12. ManyCookies says:

June 17, 2020 at 4:11 pm ~new~
The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Title VII covers LGBT employees (Scotusblog summary). The
crux of the majority position:

All that matters, Gorsuch stressed, is whether “changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a
different choice by the employer.” As an example, Gorsuch offered the case of an employer with two
employees who are both attracted to men and are, for all intents and purposes, identical, but one is
male and one is female. If the employer fires the male employee only because he is attracted to men,
while keeping the female employee, Gorsuch wrote, the employer has violated Title VII.
Somewhat surprisingly, Justice Gorsuch joined the majority and actually wrote the opinion. I don’t
know much about Supreme Court politics, is the choice of author for the opinion a huge deal?
The dissent disagreed with this particular textualist interpretation, Alito+Thomas with a spicy
Legislating From the Bench take and Kavanaugh with a separate milder dissent.
Any particular thoughts? I’ve always thought Gorsuch-style arguments were sound, but even if this
is bench legislation I’m personally thrilled with the end result.

o Nick says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:16 pm ~new~

(Also somewhat surprisingly, Justice Gorush both joined and wrote the majority opinion? I don’t
know much about Supreme Court politics but that seems significant.)
Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion because Roberts, who has seniority among the majority,
assigned it to him. It’s widely speculated Roberts joined the majority in order to do this.
 ManyCookies says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:28 pm ~new~
Whoa what? Well then why did Roberts want Gorsuch to write the opinion badly enough to flip his
own vote?
 anonymousskimmer says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:39 pm ~new~
Because the reasoning in the textualist opinion would be the one that becomes legal precedent.
 SamChevre says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:52 pm ~new~
In my opinion–there are two ways of thinking about anti-discrimination law: as outlawing
discrimination against people based on class membership, and as outlawing discrimination against
classes of people. Gorsuch’s opinion supported the first, and weakened the second; in general,
that’s the conservative preference (“the way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating
on the basis of race.”)

o broblawsky says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:22 pm ~new~
As a supporter of the majority decision, I prefer Alito & Thomas’ open loathing to Kavanaugh’s
mealy-mouthed equivocation.
o Dan L says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:27 pm ~new~

Any particular thoughts? I’ve always thought Gorsuch-style arguments were sound, but even if this
is bench legislation I’m personally thrilled with the end result.
Surreal. I don’t know if I’ve put it anywhere in writing to point to, but Gorsuch’s argument is an
almost exact match for my own reasoning. I believe I generated it independently (borrowing from
my answer to the New Riddle of Induction), and to my knowledge haven’t seen it in the wild prior
to this case.
 L (Zero) says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:33 pm ~new~
Here is an example! From as recent as April, but still.

 SamChevre says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:49 pm ~new~
wrong location
 LionVanguard says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:43 pm ~new~
After reading the majority opinion and both dissents, I have had a hard time understanding how
Gorsuch’s argument has been widely seen as convincing. Alito goes through his various
hypotheticals and (to my mind) thoroughly dismantles them. I would be interested in a write-up of
alternate avenues to understanding the intuition behind the Gorsuch position; I’m at a point where
I don’t think I could even summarize it convincingly.
On a basic level, it seems obvious that an employer could discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation without even knowing the employee’s sex (for example, asking for orientation but not
sex on the job application and rejecting all gay applicants). I really struggle to justify how this this
behavior could be characterized as sex discrimination. Surely not knowing someone’s sex is
sufficient evidence that you did not discriminate based on it.

June 17, 2020 at 10:21 pm ~new~
You make a good point, but this scenario was not one of the cases at hand. SCOTUS cannot rule on
hypotheticals that are not present.

June 17, 2020 at 11:07 pm ~new~
Much of the majority opinion is spent considering various hypothetical scenarios, each different
from the case before them. I’m not sure why you would think considering hypotheticals is beyond
their scope.
While SCOTUS does need a live controversy before it, its rulings can have implications far behind
that specific case. The majority position states, without qualifications, that discrimination based on
orientation necessarily entails discrimination based on sex. The opinion acknowledges that this
ruling will impact over a hundred other laws that include language referring to sex discrimination.
Any lower court faced with the situation I described will be forced to conclude that sex
discrimination occurred based on this ruling.

Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:04 pm ~new~
orientation without even knowing the employee’s sex (for example, asking for orientation but not sex
on the job application and rejecting all gay applicants).
If they all claim to be straight, the only way the employer can decide if they are lying is by looking
at their sex (as well as that of their partner).

June 17, 2020 at 11:17 pm ~new~
Even if an employer hired private detectives to determine a prospective employee’s orientation,
they could still enforce their ban without ever learning the person’s sex.
Furthermore, some sexual orientations are unrelated to sex. The Gorsuch hypotheticals fall
completely apart for an employer discriminating against, for example, asexual employees. Their
sex, as relating to dating behavior, has no impact on their orientation.

Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:24 pm ~new~
Even if an employer hired private detectives to determine a prospective employee’s orientation, they
could still enforce their ban without ever learning the person’s sex.
@LionVanguard At some level, the detectives need to take the person’s sex into account. A
company surely wouldn’t be excused for discrimination just because it outsources its hiring
process, with the hiring agency taking race/sex/etc. into account, but not telling the company.
The Gorsuch hypotheticals fall completely apart for an employer discriminating against, for
example, asexual employees. Their sex, as relating to dating behavior, has no impact on their
orientation.
Does the ruling actually prohibit discrimination against asexuals?
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 11:53 pm ~new~
A company surely wouldn’t be excused for discrimination just because it outsources its hiring
process, with the hiring agency taking race/sex/etc. into account
I don’t want to belabor this analogy behind usefulness, but the detectives could simply interview
friends and family and ask “is X gay” without learning their sex. Obviously this is an edge case, but
it clearly demonstrates the majority conclusion proves too much.
More broadly, I take issue with equivocating between “learning” a trait and “taking it into account”.
Sex is obviously not what anyone in this scenario is hinging their decision on.
Does the ruling actually prohibit discrimination against asexuals?
The ruling states unequivocally that discrimination based on sexual orientation necessarily entails
discrimination based on sex, and discrimination based on sex is prohibited under Title VII. The
majority opinion is sex-binary, and makes no reference to orientations behind gay/straight, but as
the core ruling makes no distinction there’s no reason to conclude other orientations (asexual,
bisexual, etc) are excluded.

Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 18, 2020 at 12:38 am ~new~
I don’t want to belabor this analogy behind usefulness, but the detectives could simply interview
friends and family and ask “is X gay” without learning their sex. Obviously this is an edge case, but it
clearly demonstrates the majority conclusion proves too much.
@LionVanguard Then it’s their friends who have to take their sex into account.
More broadly, I take issue with equivocating between “learning” a trait and “taking it into account”.
Sex is obviously not what anyone in this scenario is hinging their decision on.
IMO it’s a reasonable interpretation (though not the only possible interpretation) to consider it
discrimination based on sex to discriminate between two people who are equal in all possible
respects (including the sex of their partner) except their own sex. I do think this interpretation
leads to weird consequences, I’ve argued about that elsewhere in the comments.
The ruling states unequivocally that discrimination based on sexual orientation necessarily entails
discrimination based on sex
OK, I’ve looked up the ruling. I haven’t read it all, but the part you presumably refer to says
discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination
based on sex
Hide ↑
 The original Mr. X says:

June 18, 2020 at 2:58 am ~new~
IMO it’s a reasonable interpretation (though not the only possible interpretation) to consider it
discrimination based on sex to discriminate between two people who are equal in all possible
respects (including the sex of their partner) except their own sex.
If you change the sex of the employee and not that of the partner, you thereby change the
employee’s sexual orientation as well, meaning that they’re no longer “equal in all possible
respects… except their own sex”.

Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 18, 2020 at 4:01 am ~new~
If you change the sex of the employee and not that of the partner, you thereby change the employee’s
sexual orientation as well, meaning that they’re no longer “equal in all possible respects… except
their own sex”.
@The original Mr. X , It can be argued that the sex of the employee and the sex of their partner
are more fundamental facts about the World than whether these two are equal. It’s reasonable to
say that we (hypothetically) change one fundamental fact, and keep everything else constant, even
if, by doing so, we change various “compound” attributes of the World that are functions of
multiple fundamental facts, such as the sexual orientation of the employee.

Actually, it’s like choosing a basis in a vector space. Let F₂ × F₂ be the two-dimensional vector
space over the two-element field, with the first F₂ mapped to the employee’s sex, and the second
F₂ mapped to their partner’s sex.
One basis is
e₁=(1,0)
e₂=(0,1)
Then the two coordinates are the two people’s sex. Changing the first coordinate independently of
the second changes their sexual orientation, but not the sex of the partner.
Another basis is
e₁=(1,0)
e₂=(1,1)
Then the first coordinate is the employee’s sex, and the second coordinate corresponds to whether
the employee is heterosexual. Changing the first coordinate independently of the second changes
the partner’s sex, but not their sexual orientation.
The court has to decide which basis is more natural. There is a weird thing, however, where the
courts somehow uses both bases at the same time (see my comment); that, IMO, is wholly
unjustified.
(Here I’ve taken sexual orientation to simply mean whether the sex of the employee and their
partner is the same; if we want to define it by attraction, we can substitute the sex the employee is
generally attracted to for the sex of the employee’s partner.)

Hide ↑
 Ketil says:
June 18, 2020 at 12:35 am ~new~
orientation without even knowing the employee’s sex
LionVanguard suggests discrimination against asexuals as not being frameable as discrimination on
the basis on sex, and I think bisexuals is an even better illustration. If you discriminate against
bisexuals in general, changing the sex of the person you discriminate against wouldn’t matter.
Edit: Come to think of it… it seems as if Gorsuch refuses to accept homosexuality as a concept, and
just breaks it down into ‘attracted to women’ and ‘attracted to men’. In which case discrimination
becomes a matter of the sex of the discriminee.
o FLWAB says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:35 pm ~new~
Gorsuch is providing an excellent teaching tool to illustrate what exactly the difference between a
textualist and an originalist is. Gorsuch looks at the text, sees that it forbids discrimination based
on sex, and applies that text to this new case. Since it seems apparent that if the employees sex
was different they wouldn’t have been fired he says “Alright, that’s the text of the law so that’s how
it goes.” Alito dissents with the originalist position, writing that

If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who
thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation—not
to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time
This is originalism in a nutshell: nobody making that law at the time thought it applied to gays,
clearly. Therefore it should not be interpreted that way. Meanwhile Gorsuch writes almost in
response that
the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.
Excellent teaching tool on the difference between the two judicial philosophies when the rubber
meets the road. If a law has results that the legislators did not intend, the originalist says “They
didn’t mean it that way, so it doesn’t count” while the textualist says “They should have written the
law better if they didn’t want it interpreted that way.”

 MisterA says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:04 pm ~new~
Gorsuch has gone up a lot in my estimation. I still disagree with him about basically everything,
and I am sure he will still piss me off most of the time, but it’s pretty obvious he just wrote an
opinion that he disagrees with as a matter of policy because that’s what the law says.
I had pretty much resigned myself to the idea that the Supreme Court is just an appointed
legislature and that both the liberals and conservatives just find whatever way they need to in
order to advance their preferred politics. I now actually kind of suspect Gorsuch actually believes
all that textualism stuff, even when it leads to policy outcomes he does not agree with.
 Anonymous Bosch says:

June 17, 2020 at 6:16 pm ~new~
Gorsuch has been doing minor bamboozles for a while now in areas of criminal procedure. I don’t
think he’s a libertarian by any stretch and he’ll end up overturning Roe but a consistent textualist is
just about the best you can hope for with Republican appointments. He reminds me of Hugo Black,
who wrote some important Warren Court precedents but dissented in substantive due process
cases.
June 17, 2020 at 9:27 pm ~new~
I think you are giving too little credit to Alito’s position.
A major point of his dissent is that the majority not only declare their interpretation of the text
plausible, but the only reasonable interpretation possible. From the dissent:
[The majority] argues, not merely that the terms of Title VII can be interpreted that way but that
they cannot reasonably be interpreted any other way. According to the Court, the text is
unambiguous.
The arrogance of this argument is breathtaking. As I will show, there is not a shred of evidence that
any Member of Congress interpreted the statutory text that way when Title VII was enacted. But the
Court apparently thinks that this was because the Members were not “smart enough to realize” what
its language means. The Court seemingly has the same opinion about our colleagues on the Courts of
Appeals, because until 2017, every single Court of Appeals to consider the question interpreted Title
VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination to mean discrimination on the basis of biological sex.
Earlier interpretations are relevant because they provide pretty clear evidence that reasonable
people can disagree with the majority’s interpretation. In that case, within the textualist
framework, the majority needs to make an argument as to why their interpretation is better. They
avoid doing this by claiming it’s the only possible way a reasonable person could interpret the
statute.
 borsch4 says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:21 pm ~new~
This seems like a really bad way to explain textualism unless I’m missing something. To me saying
that “they should have written the law better” seems very pedantic and a horrible way to interpret
laws, especially if one wants to avoid legislating from the bench. What other word besides sex
should the authors of the original law have used? Do they need to specify every other possible
interpretation and say that’s not what they mean? I just can’t see how a textualist has a consistent
way to apply laws.

 10240 says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:17 pm ~new~
What other word besides sex should the authors of the original law have used?
They could have added something like “It’s not considered discrimination to require employees to
have behaviors or appearance traditionally associated with their sex, as long as such requirement
does not exclude them from particular jobs, or affect their ability to perform their job.”
 No One In Particular says:

June 18, 2020 at 12:39 am ~new~
You seem to be saying “It would have been really clunky to word the law so as to distinguish
between ‘Men can serve on the board and women can’t’ and ‘Women can wear dresses, and men
can’t”. Well, doesn’t that suggest that the distinction between them is rather artificial? I don’t see
how “If legislatures want to make a highly artificial distinction, they’re going to have to word the
law really carefully” is something we should be worried about.
I really don’t get what point you’re trying to make here.

o Wrong Species says:

June 17, 2020 at 6:03 pm ~new~
I know that we’re supposed to keep up the Noble Lie in public for appearances, but can we here
not just admit this whole thing is a sham? Constitutional arguments have nothing to do with the
Constitution and everything to do with supporting your favorite policies. Everyone knows this
except for people like John Roberts. Notice how the Democrat appointed judges don’t ever oppose
gay marriage or issues like it on procedural grounds. Constitutional arguments are modern day
sophistry.
 John Schilling says:

June 17, 2020 at 6:16 pm ~new~
Constitutional arguments have nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with
supporting your favorite policies.
LGBT rights are one of Neil Gorsuch’s favorite policies? Strange that we’re just finding out about
that now; you’d think it would have come up in all the talk around his appointment and
confirmation.
I think you’re about to talk yourself into an unfalsifiable position backed up by circular logic: we
know that Supreme Court justices always vote for their favorite policies, and we know what their
favorite policies are because those are the ones they vote for.

June 17, 2020 at 7:02 pm ~new~
No, procedural conservatives like Roberts and Gorsuch have “principles”. Everyone else knows
what’s actually happening. We know this because judges make idiotic arguments that make no
sense. We all accept it because living under a Constitutional government is not something many
people actually want so judges resort to these ridiculous tricks to make it pass muster. The last few
decades is just them using the flimsiest justifications to make their own laws.
 ECD says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:44 pm ~new~
This isn’t a constitutional issue. It’s pure statutory interpretation. Also, what John said.
This is actually quite encouraging as a reminder that despite endless cynicism which wears on me,
most people do actually have principles and stick to them.


June 17, 2020 at 7:13 pm ~new~
I don’t know how anyone living in the US right now could look around and say with a straight face
“You know what people are too cynical about? Partisanship”. Do you think it’s just some weird
coincidence that Republican appointees vote conservatives and Democrat appointees vote liberal,
regardless of whatever legal reasoning they use to get there? Good god, people. We’re living in the
reign of Septimius Severus and you guys are acting like the Senate still has power. That ship sailed
long ago.
 ECD says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:18 pm ~new~
No. We’re not.

Do you think it’s just some weird coincidence that Republican appointees vote conservatives and
Democrat appointees vote liberal, regardless of whatever legal reasoning they use to get there?
You saw this directly in the face of countervailing evidence. Now, I’m sure you’re going to say,
because you say it above, that it’s just these two conservatives who actually say and do what they
believe, but that statement is not actually proof.
And with all possible respect, if your response to someone saying something is encouraging is to
attempt to shit all over it, you may want to take a moment, step back and consider if perhaps you
should stop.
Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 7:42 pm ~new~
No, there was also Kennedy. People only expect conservatives to be “principled”. The people
cheering on Ginsburg aren’t doing so because they are just incredibly impressed by her wise
judicial reasoning.
And with all possible respect, if your response to someone saying something is encouraging is to
attempt to shit all over it, you may want to take a moment, step back and consider if perhaps you
should stop.
You know as well as I do that that is not an argument. Either I’m right or I’m wrong. “You’re too
cynical” doesn’t say anything about the correctness of what I said. You can’t just respond to my
comment and expect me not to respond back because it brings you down.
Obviously, this isn’t going to go anywhere so I’ll tap out but given what we know about motivated
reasoning, maybe you should ask yourself which theory, the cynical one or the idealistic one, has
more predictive power when looking at a wide range of cases.

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 9:39 pm ~new~
maybe you should ask yourself which theory, the cynical one or the idealistic one, has more
predictive power when looking at a wide range of cases
Maybe you should have used your theory to actually make a prediction, before the ruling was
announced. That’s way more conclusive than saying after the fact, “my theory would have
predicted that!” But there will be other opportunities, if you are so inclined.
Hide ↑

June 18, 2020 at 1:09 am ~new~
On what possible grounds would a judge oppose gay marriage? There’s a difference between not
striking down a law restricting marriage to opposite sex couples, versus opposing gay marriage.
Speaking of the effects of a ruling as being the agenda of the justices is begging the question.
o blumenko says:
June 18, 2020 at 12:10 am ~new~
I am not sure I completely understand the ruling. If a man (and I mean a man, no claim of
transgender or anything like that) refuses to use the men’s bathroom, and consistently uses the
women’s bathroom, and he is fired, it seems like this ruling would claim he is being discriminated
against, because if he were a woman he wouldn’t be fired. That just seems completely bonkers.
13. Purplehermann says:

June 17, 2020 at 3:08 pm ~new~
A commenter linked an article by Unz about jews. I read it, and now I’m confused why anyone
would bother listening to him or take him seriously in any way.
He seems less convincing than David Icke

o albatross11 says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:20 pm ~new~
As far as I can tell, Unz has gone off the deep end, and was always inclined to wacky theories that
he could confirmation-bias his way into believing. OTOH, Unz’ site hosts Steve Sailer’s blog, and I
think Sailer is a smart guy who often has some interesting insights, when he can refrain from
snarkiness and actually address an issue instead of just dunking on the other side’s sillier
members. (Admittedly, many of the sillier members of the other side have very prominent
positions in the world, but still….)

 Atlas says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:42 pm ~new~
Indeed. What’s weird about Sailer is that he indulges in a lot of low-value “Boo outgroup!” posting,
but simultaneously is very willing to fair-mindedly incorporate insights from lots of different
ideological perspectives into his writings. E.g., his article Libertarianism in One Country? both
emphatically criticizes some aspects of libertarianism while also praising others. Or consider his
very sympathetic review back in 2003 of now famously left-wing Elizabeth Warren’s the Two
Income Trap.
Edit: I’m not sure that it’s correct, but this line really pithily summarizes the first article’s argument
so I’m going to quote it:

There is staggeringly too much inequality in the world for America’s love affair with capitalism to
survive importing massive amounts of it.
14. JohnNV says:

June 17, 2020 at 2:44 pm ~new~
Very mildly related, I was reading Scott’s review of the Hive Mind here and saw that Garrett Jones
had issued a reply. But since this post was 5 years ago, the link to the reply is dead. I’m curious to
know how he responded, does anybody have a record of it? Or can summarize it for me?
June 17, 2020 at 2:54 pm ~new~
Did you run the dead link through the internet archive?
 Nick says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:59 pm ~new~
I did. It only came up in 2019, and by then it was already deleted.

15. AlexOfUrals says:

June 17, 2020 at 1:33 pm ~new~
Meanwhile in Covid Russia a heretical women monastery is supported by cossacks in denying
secular and church authorities. Running the show is Father Sergey, ex-hegumen (abbot) of said
monastery who was relieved from this position, barred from public preaching and accused of
schism by the Russian Orthodox Church for his heresy – he says coronavirus is not a thing,
everyone should stop self-isolation, get out and go to churches, and also something deadly
vaccines with microchips something something “Satan’s electronic [concentration] camp”.

I can’t seem to find a decent article on this story in the English media, which is understandable but
still a shame because the guy is absolutely epic. He has portraits of Stalin, Nicolas II and Rasputin
in his monastery cell. When asked he said Stalin is there because he eradicated sodomy. No
wonder some cossack volunteers answered his call and came to the monastery to “protect it from
provocations”, among them some veterans of the Donbass war. Also some obscure Olympic
champion and a comedian were noticed in the monastery and gave interviews supporting the
hegumen. Apparently he’s one of the most noticeable religious figures in modern Russian Orthodox
Church, and among other things he’s known for being a ghostly father of Natalia Poklonskaya (a
completely crazy and very memetic person of her own, a deputy of Duma currently, Prosecutor
General of Crimea in the past, fangirl of Nicolas II forever). Comes as a little surprise to anyone
familiar with modern Russian clergy and oligarchy, that before his spiritual career Father Sergey
served a sentence for murder and robbery. The crimes to which he admitted while being under trial
for embezzling and negligent homicide. Oh and of course Father Sergey is his church name. His
secular name is Nicolai Romanov. Exactly like the guy on his wall, aka the last Tsar of Russia.
o noyann says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:09 pm ~new~
Thank you so much for that!! — I soo needed a hearty laugh throughout this awful day!
o ana53294 says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:37 pm ~new~
Where does it say anything about the coronavirus? The article doesn’t seem to say anything about
it. Nor the russian article it links to.

 AlexOfUrals says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:59 pm ~new~
It says here or here, for example. Unfortunately both are in Russian, not much of English media
have bandwidth for this it seems, so I’ve been using Russian sources and didn’t read the article
I’ve linked in details.
ETA: I’ve found his video on youtube. He doesn’t explicitly mention the covid or self-isolation, but
asks the Patriarch why are they prohibited from conducting sermons and meeting people. Also, the
ending: “I’ve got a coffin. I’ve got nails. I’ve got a cross. Awaiting for your decision”
 ana53294 says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:31 pm ~new~
I like this guy. Despite the Stalin calendar.
He seems to be advocating for the separation of church and state. I’ve heard quite a few Russian
Orthodox do so, at least the truly religious ones, because they don’t like the Kremlin interfering
with their Church.
And they seemed to have collected the money for the monastery privately? That seems like quite
an accomplishment.
It’s a pity he’s such a crank. But I already expressed my frustration on finding myself on the same
side as nutjobs and cranks.

June 17, 2020 at 4:39 pm ~new~
I’ve heard quite a few Russian Orthodox do so, at least the truly religious ones, because they don’t
like the Kremlin interfering with their Church.
That… hasn’t been my impression, generally. Unless by “separation” you mean “let the government
do whatever they do, we should not question them or otherwise get involved in politics in
whatsoever way”. But then again, I don’t know many very religious people, so not much confidence
on this one.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 3:07 pm ~new~
A Russian Orthodox convent is accused of heresy? They’re probably OK, though with a chance that
they’re espousing excessively progressive things like unisex ordination…
>They’re led by a homicidal robber ex-abbot who makes ersatz icons of non-saints like Rasputin
and Stalin and casts Summon Cossacks
Well that was unexpected.

June 17, 2020 at 3:46 pm ~new~
Well, technically he’s still leading this convent of which he was a hegumen – and a founder in fact,
– so I’m not sure you can even call him ‘ex-‘, more like ‘rogue’… which doesn’t make it any better,
does it?
 Le Maistre Chat says:

June 17, 2020 at 4:04 pm ~new~
Rogue Cleric who does heterodox theury?
I’m sure I could make this D&D build work.

 John Richards says:

June 17, 2020 at 7:29 pm ~new~
By unisex ordination I assume you mean female priests? A convent that publicly advocated for that
position would basically by cut off from the wider Eastern Orthodox community, and in no way
considered canonical, or “licit.” They wouldn’t be considered “Orthodox.”


June 18, 2020 at 12:13 am ~new~
Yes, that’s what I meant. In the Roman Catholic Church, “oh, the heresy has to do with advocating
for female priests” would be the obvious prior when you hear “convent accused of heresy.”
o The Big Red Scary says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:11 pm ~new~
Meanwhile in normality, I visited Kolomna yesterday, where I stepped inside the church off the old
square to light a candle. Masks and 1.5 meters distance were the rule, with red tape on the floors
to show you where to stand. In general, Kolomna seemed to be observing covid precautionary
measures much better than people in my small suburban Moscow town. I should try to round up
some cossacks to whip the invading Muscovites for over-crowding our local pond.
o Aftagley says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:14 pm ~new~

Comes as a little surprise to anyone familiar with modern Russian clergy and oligarchy, that before
his spiritual career Father Sergey served a sentence for murder and robbery.
Given that this comes as a major surprise to me, could you point me at a source where I could
learn more? I didn’t really know there was a progression from murderer to clergyman in Russia.
 ana53294 says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:34 pm ~new~
There’s a progression from criminal to deeply religious.
I’m not sure how sincere it is, but all of Putin’s KGB friends (and Putin himself), at some point
started going to church regularly, funding monasteries and such. And you can safely assume most
of Putin’s friends are criminals, although not all of them are murderers.
Becoming a priest is not such a big jump from that.

June 17, 2020 at 3:57 pm ~new~
Pretty much what ana53294 said. Another example is that it’s common for former or active
criminal bosses to donate huge sums of money (as in “build a new monastery in the middle of the
forest” huge) on religious purposes.
And also, there definitely is plenty of officials on all levels of government who were previously
accused and at times convicted of robbery, murder, rape or what-have-you. And the difference
between that and a church official is often mostly in the style of closing and aesthetics of the office
building, so one can generalize. Although I must admit a murderer who became a hegumen is a bit
of an extreme example, but only a bit. Getting such credentials while already on the job is also not
unheard of – there’s been a few of prominent cases where some high-ranking church official killed
or badly injured a person in a car accident, usually drunk, and got away with it more or less
unscathed – through divine intervention, I presume.

16. David W says:

June 17, 2020 at 1:02 pm ~new~
A couple Open Threads ago, ana53294 expressed concern about permanent loss of land due to
nuclear disasters. Since that time, I have found the Fukushima Revitalization Station website,
which has some useful information on the subject. They have good maps demonstrating that
radiation levels in the prefecture have fallen greatly, a presentation demonstrating
decontamination procedures and results, and a good map of areas that have been cleared for
returning residents.
It seems as though 2/3 of the area evacuated is already reoccupied, and the remaining portion is
making steady progress. Whether this is good enough and fast enough to speak to your concerns,
I’m not sure, but I thought you’d like to know that these are not permanent losses, at least in the
Fukushima incident.
o sharper13 says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:25 pm ~new~
I’ve noticed that when nuclear disasters and nuclear waste comes up, many people don’t really
understand the implications of half-lives and how radiation is produced, so there is a tendency to
overreact.
If something radioactive is really harmful/deadly, that’s because it has a short half-life. When it
decays is when it emits energy in the form of radiation, so things which decay quickly emit more
radiation faster. But because it has a short half-life, that also means it doesn’t stay around very
long (comparably) before turning into a more stable/less deadly/less radioactive element.
So physically speaking, the highly radioactive/deadly trait contradicts the trait lasts-a-long-time.

June 18, 2020 at 1:14 am ~new~
It’s quite possible for something to be both dangerous and have a long half-life. And a short half
life doesn’t mean it goes away quickly. If you have a mol of something, it will take around eighty
half lives for it to all decay. A half life of one year doesn’t mean it’s safe after a year.
 sharper13 says:
June 18, 2020 at 1:52 am ~new~
Sure, quantity obviously matters as well.
A shorter half-life almost by definition means that it starts more dangerous, but becomes less
dangerous faster. Notice I said “comparably”.
I’m talking about years, decades, even centuries, for short vs. long, not days.
17. Trofim_Lysenko says:

June 17, 2020 at 11:32 am ~new~
A request for Science Fiction and Fantasy book recommendations. I have at least another week or
so where I’m going to be mostly phone-sitting at work and have been allowed a kindle, and I’m
averaging 1.5 books per shift.
To help calibrate taste (sorry the list is so long, but 90% of the time I ask for recommendations
and it’s all stuff I’ve already read):
Authors I’ve read and quite liked:
-RAH, Bradbury, Clarke, Asimov, Lewis, Tolkien, Zelazny, Gene Wolfe, Bujold, most of John Ringo,
Larry Correia, Dan Simmons, David Weber, Eric Flint, Neal Asher, Alastair Reynolds, Iain Banks,
Peter Watts, Jim Butcher, Cole & Bunch’s Sten books, China Mieville, Brian McClellan, Andrzej
Sapkowski, Django Wexler, Hannu Rajaniemi, Neal Stephenson, Stephen Brust, Terry Pratchett,
Yoon Ha Lee, Mercedes Lackey, Matt Stover, Brandon Sanderson, Scott Lynch, Jack Campbell
Authors I’ve read and liked some of their work:
-Scalzi (Book 3 of Old Man’s War pissed me off so much I dropped that series and haven’t come
back to him since, but I liked the first two. I’ve been debating giving him another chance with the
Interdependency books), James S.A. Corey and his component parts, Octavia Butler, Ursula K.
LeGuin, Poul Anderson, Frank Herbert, Doc Smith, David Brin, Kameron Hurley, Terry Brooks,
David Eddings, Stephen Donaldson, Gordon Dickson, Tanith Lee, CJ Cherryh, Joe Abercrombie,
Kameron Hurley, Charles Stross, Elizabeth Moon, Elizabeth Bear,

Authors I’ve read and didn’t care for:
-NK Jemisin, Cixin Liu (8 deadly words-ed 3-Body Problem 3 times, never made it past 3/4ths in),
Ann Leckie, Robert Jordan (got tired of WoT about 2/3rds through),
o noyann says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:42 am ~new~
(Apology for repeating from the already dying last thread)
A list of SciFi with comments on their economics is here, maybe you find something of interest to
you.
Cory Doctorow may be too much Young Adult in many works, but Walkaway is definitely adult.
Highly recommended.
ETA: Andy Weir’s The Martian for some engineer porn. Better than the film, imo.
ETA2: While searching for this, I also found this.
Now you will spend all your time trying to decide what you like best. 🙂
 Trofim_Lysenko says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:32 pm ~new~
I saw the post and have started combing through it, and already read The Martian. Thanks for the
other suggestions!
o Randy M says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:44 am ~new~
Do you care for Orson Scott Card at all? I’d recommend trying some of his stand alone novels, like
Wyrms, Worthing Saga, or Treason. His newer stuff is alright if you are a fan, but doesn’t seem as
interesting. If you like those, there’s the Ender’s Game series, which is endless at this point.
 Elementaldex says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:58 pm ~new~
If you opt for the Ender’s Game series I would go for the Shadow series first. I think its quite a bit
more interesting.
June 17, 2020 at 3:34 pm ~new~
I thought I’d read all his books up to the early 00’s but I’ll check those, thanks.
o Nick says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:44 am ~new~
Greg Egan, Greg Bear, Vernor Vinge, and Michael Crichton, to take a few on my shelves you didn’t
list. I’ll specifically recommend A Fire Upon the Deep by Vinge and Sphere by Crichton; the first is a
classic and the second is IMO underappreciated.

 Mycale says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:43 pm ~new~
I’ll second A Fire upon the Deep — I found that book to be genuinely delightful and really ought to
get around to finishing the series. It’s well worth a read.
I’ll also mention A Mote in God’s Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle.
 matkoniecz says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:13 pm ~new~
A Fire upon the Deep and A Deepness in the Sky were magnificent, I highly recommend them.
Further parts were terribly awful, seemed to be a low quality offtopic fanfiction.
But especially A Deepness in the Sky was magnificent.

Vg jnf n jbzna’f ibvpr, Gevkvn Obafby. “Terrgvatf gb gur uhznaf nobneq Vaivfvoyr Unaq. Guvf vf
Yvrhgranag Ivpgbel Yvtuguvyy, Nppbeq Vagryyvtrapr Freivpr. V unir gnxra pbageby bs lbhe
fcnprpensg. Lbh jvyy or ba gur tebhaq fubegyl. Vg znl or fbzr gvzr orsber bhe sbeprf neevir ba gur
fprar. Qb abg, V ercrng, qb abg erfvfg gubfr sbeprf.”
naq riragf nebhaq jrer n irel avpr raqvat tvira jung unccrarq rneyvre.
 Nick says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:18 pm ~new~
I read The Children of the Sky, the first sequel, and I was pretty disappointed. It’s not outright
terrible, but it’s really not very good. I don’t know if I would pick up another sequel.
A shame, because in other respects it is a very nice book to have on my shelves—beautiful cover,
and just the right size for a paperback.

Hide ↑
 Aftagley says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:42 pm ~new~
Further parts were terribly awful, seemed to be a low quality offtopic fanfiction.
Ok, I’m glad it wasn’t just me. I only got through around 1/3rd of Children of the Sky before
quitting in near-disgust.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 3:07 pm ~new~
I fortunately stopped much earlier. I never, ever was so disappointed in any text.
I encountered worse ones, but never expected something great from them. And this was simply
sad.
Hide ↑
 Thomas Jorgensen says:

June 18, 2020 at 12:53 am ~new~
.. Pournelles daughter, Jennifer R. Pournelle is hilariously the anti – Kevin Anderson, that is, she
wrote a single book in her fathers universe demonstrating that she is a rather better author than
he is, then went right back to being a successful academic.

June 17, 2020 at 3:39 pm ~new~
I was listing off the top of my head. Thanks for the Greg reminders, I’ve read at least a couple
from each but not all I don’t think, so I’ll check their bibliography. Like the rest of you I loved A
Fire Upon The Deep and A Deepness In the Sky and was let down by the sequel. I haven’t actually
read any other Vinge though, so that’s a thought.I’ve read all of Crichton up through Next which
was…..not good.
o Kojak says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:53 am ~new~
You ever read the three Takeshi Kovacs books by Richard K. Morgan (Altered Carbon, Broken
Angels and Woken Furies)? Those are good fun, and a pretty easy read besides.
Likewise, if you enjoy transhuman fic along the lines of Alastair Reynolds or Iain M. Banks, Peter F.
Hamilton might be up your alley. I will say that I think the other two are better writers; Hamilton is
still quite good, it’s just that they’re even better.
And now I’m looking at this list and seeing that William Gibson isn’t on it? Have you never read the
Sprawl trilogy? If not, I’m almost a little envious of you, having the opportunity to read it fresh.
 Tarpitz says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:40 pm ~new~
Hamilton is a lot of fun. Something of a guilty pleasure, in many ways, but a lot of fun.
 Aftagley says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:43 pm ~new~
Where should I start with him?

 Conrad Honcho says:

June 17, 2020 at 3:57 pm ~new~
Pandora’s Star. And then proceed to the rest of the Commonwealth saga.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 3:57 pm ~new~
I’ve read and quite liked the Kovacs trilogy, I thought Thirteen/Black man was so-so and didn’t
care for his fantasy novel. I’ve read all of Gibson up to Pattern Recognition (I think that’s the title),
stopped since I haven’t liked his later works nearly as much.
Thanks for the reminder on Hamilton! I’ve only read the Commonwealth books and had forgotten
he had other stuff.

 cassander says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:30 pm ~new~
I’ve been meaning to read the Takeshi Kovacs books, but man was season 2 of the netflix show
terrible. All the stuff I didn’t care about in season 1 and almost not of the stuff I liked.
o achenx says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:56 am ~new~
Kim Stanley Robinson? Red Mars is great, the sequels are ok. Years of Rice and Salt is excellent
though it’s more alternate history than sci-fi/fantasy. Never read any more of his stuff after that
though.
Oh, and for the classics there’s A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter Miller.
June 17, 2020 at 3:07 pm ~new~
+1 to A Canticle for Liebowitz though it was quite depressing one.

June 17, 2020 at 4:01 pm ~new~
I really liked A Canticle For Liebowitz (read in HS courtesy of the Babylon 5 episode with a pastiche
of it). I didn’t much care for Red Mars, eight deadly worded a little way into Green, and couldn’t
finish Aurora either, so I concluded I don’t care for KSR.

 salvorhardin says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:58 pm ~new~
There’s less-well-known early KSR that I like quite a bit more than the later Mars books. _The Gold
Coast_, _The Memory of Whiteness_, and the stories collected in _Remaking History_ come to
mind.
o a real dog says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:29 pm ~new~
Sci-fi:
Seconding Greg Egan, that’s good stuff.
Stanislaw Lem is definitely a big one missing from your list, start with Solaris.
William Gibson if you dig cyberpunk.
Once Jacek Dukaj starts getting translated, jump on that one. I think “Ice” is in some kind of
translation development hell since 2017…
Fantasy:
R. Scott Baker’s “Darkness That Comes Before” had some good ideas, dunno about the rest of the
series.
 noyann says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:05 pm ~new~
+1 Stanislaw Lem.
His work is widely spread and heterogenous, and the space faring is of the cold war era style. But
this mind was so vast and creative, see the list — try to get some sample pages (Google Books,
Amazon) of the stories about Pilot Pirx, about Trurl & Klapaucius, of Summa Technologiae, and of
The Futurulogic[al?] Congress (NEVER watch that movie!) to see what suits your taste.
Recommended:
+1 Solaris (re the film, avoid the remake but go for Tarkovskij!)
Not SciFi works in a narrow sense, but there is great imagination in the books of collected reviews
(A Perfect Vacuum, One Human Minute) or introductions (Imaginary Magnitude) for nonexistent
books.
June 17, 2020 at 2:23 pm ~new~
+1 for Lem. If available in English – The Futurological Congress is great.
Solaris, His Master’s Voice, Fiasco (except the short prologue with mechas) are highly, highly
recommended.
Summa Technologiae is far more impressive if you remember that it was written in 1964.
 noyann says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:44 pm ~new~
Venturing into nonfiction, there is a piece “Weapon Systems of the 21st Century or the Upside
Down Evolution” — almost prophetic.
What a great mind. RIP and thank you for expanding mine a little, Stanislaw.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 4:06 pm ~new~
I read Solaris when I was 12 or 13 and remember not liking it, but that was 25 years ago so it’s
probably worth another shot.

So if I’m going to read Lem again, what’s his next best book after Solaris?
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 5:20 pm ~new~
Depends on what you want, but The Futurological Congress is short and quite different from
Solaris. Many like stories about Pirx – some great, some not, and Fables for Robots that I rather
disliked.
humor:
The Futurological Congress – is fun and the best kind of absurdity very mild spoiler: (punenpgre
unyyhpvangvat gung ur vf abg unyyhpvangvat nobhg unyyhpvangvat… – guvf erphefvba vf whfg
bar bs uvtuyvtugf)
science-fiction:
His Master’s Voice – story about an effort by scientists to decode, translate and understand an
extraterrestrial transmission. Alieness is even more alien than in Fiasco

science-fiction:
Fiasco – story about the first contact, aliens are not humanoids speaking English, has some
missteps (freaking mechas in the prologue)
interesting prediction from quite deep past:
Summa Technologiae, Weapon Systems of the 21st Century or the Upside Down Evolution – rare
kinds of quite successful predictions

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 7:00 pm ~new~
I remember really liking Return from the Stars. And +1 to the Trurl and Klaupacius stories,
collected in English as The Cyberiad.

Hide ↑
 noyann says:
June 18, 2020 at 1:17 am ~new~
My memory is too hazy, too much time has passed for detailed recommendations. Instead: Google
books or Amazon’s ‘look inside this book’ to get an impression of style and translation quality;
Amazon reviews are the impressions of recent readers and often point out the best and worst of
the book.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 3:12 pm ~new~
One more +1 to Greg Egan, especially Diaspora.
———-
Jacek Dukaj is great, though Ice seems one of weaker ones.
“Perfect Imperfection”, “Other Songs”, “The Plunderer’s Daughter”, “The Cathedral” were all great.
And none appears to be available in English.

June 17, 2020 at 4:18 pm ~new~
I’ll keep an eye out for English translations, thanks!

June 17, 2020 at 5:31 pm ~new~
You may want to search for CG short film “The Cathedral” by Bagiński – based on one of aspects of
his story.
Though now it is 18 years old computer-generated movie, so nowadays it is far less impressive.
Hide ↑
o AG says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:41 pm ~new~
Murderbot novellas by Martha Wells. Breezy space sci-fi. You can probably finish all four currently
released ones in a day.
Steeplejack series by A.J. Hartley (3 books). Historical fantasy set in the industrial age.
The Priory of the Orange Tree by Samantha Shannon. Epic doorstopper fantasy.
The Traitor Baru Cormorant by Seth Dickinson. Historical fantasy, but I very much anti-recommend
the sequel.
Alif the Unseen by Willow G. Wilson. Romantic fantasy with a modern cyberpunk bent.
Superposition by David Walton and its sequel, Supersymmetry. Sci-fi thriller.
The Enchantment Emporium by Tanya Huff. Modern fantasy comedy.
Kushiel’s Dart by Jacqueline Carey. Epic doorstopper fantasy.
Any novel by A. Lee Martinez. Comedic fantasy.
Seconding the Cory Doctorow recommendation.
Also you should try out Tamora Pierce, Diane Duane, and Diana Wynne Jones.
June 17, 2020 at 4:26 pm ~new~
I tried the Murderbot books but they didn’t hold my interest. Ditto Kushiel’s Dart though I finished
that one. The Traitor Baru Cormorant I put down not even halfway through. I Like some of Tanya
Huff and. Diane Duane though so I’ll definitely check out your other recommendations, thanks.
o Bobobob says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:55 pm ~new~
Anything by James Tiptree, Jr. (real name Alice Sheldon).
Speaking of pseudonyms, I’m curious how you decided on your user name!
June 17, 2020 at 4:42 pm ~new~
An unsung hero of the Cold War. Single-handedly set Soviet genetics research back years! In other
words, as a somewhat nerdy joke.
And thanks for the reminder, name’s very familiar so it goes onto the list.
o Elementaldex says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:04 pm ~new~
I have similar-ish tastes to your and would recommend both:
City of Stairs – Robert Jackson
City of Stairs is a really interesting ‘post’ divine fantasy world with very interesting main characters
The Golem and the Jinni – Helen Wecker
The Golem and the Jinni is historical fantasy with very mild romance based in New York in the
1920’s(?) The historical element is very well done and gives it a very nice setting and the book has
very good prose/atmosphere.

June 17, 2020 at 5:08 pm ~new~
Thanks, on the list they go!

o DavidFriedman says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:11 pm ~new~
What I have read most of recently, as mentioned before, is Cherryh’s Foreigner series.
For fantasy, I thought Spinning Silver, by Novik, was great. I’m also a fan of Bujold’s fantasy,
including the Penric series of novellas, or whatever you call linked stories too long for short stories,
too short for novels.
A while back I was reading some David Duncan, and liked Ill Met in the Arena.
I’m also a fan of my own fantasy, Salamander and Brothers, but perhaps a bit biased.
June 17, 2020 at 5:13 pm ~new~
I liled both the Foreigner and Chanur books, and have at least somewhat enjoyed everything
Bujold has written (even if the last few Vorkosigan books have leaned more and more on the
‘somewhat’).
I keep meaning to look at your books, so now’s a good opportunity. And by Novik do you mean
Naomi Novik?

June 17, 2020 at 5:19 pm ~new~
I’ve read the Chanur series at least twice. Cherryh is famous for setting a high standard for
characterization of aliens. That said, I found it grating how the lion-people’s belief in the
supernatural only extends to the ship’s crew saying “gods-rotted” around 10,000 times per novel
(apparently gods only exist to be the cause of the physical phenomenon of rotting). It was a
sufficiently annoying verbal tic that I wished she’d just made them atheists like so many other SF
writers.
 DavidFriedman says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:07 pm ~new~
Yes.
Naomi Novik, who wrote the Napoleonic sea story with dragons books, also wrote a very good
fantasy.
o The Red Foliot says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:11 pm ~new~
I’m always surprised at how unpopular Jack Vance is here. I recommend the Lyonesse trilogy as
his greatest series and the Alastor series as the one with the most interesting sociology to it.
Alastor will particularly appeal to libertarians as two out of three of its installments extol
capitalistic, individualistic societies and condemn their opposites. It also has an interesting
aristocratic society in the Rhunes, who are insular, violent, and yet extremely dedicated to social
refinement.
Some criticisms of him are that his plots are linear and simplistic and that his characters, also, are
often linear and simplistic.

 Nancy Lebovitz says:

June 17, 2020 at 3:58 pm ~new~
Would you say Vance is unpopular in the sense of disliked here, or just not mentioned?
 The Red Foliot says:

June 17, 2020 at 5:17 pm ~new~
Just not mentioned, as I’ve literally never seen him brought up. It’s not too weird when I think
about it, though, as folk here seem to prefer hard sci-fi, while Vance was more about fantasy in
space with some tongue-in-cheek sociology thrown in.

 Nancy Lebovitz says:

June 18, 2020 at 3:14 am ~new~
Vance should probably have more of a presence here because of how good many of his main
characters are at figuring things out .

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 5:17 pm ~new~
Thanks for the reminder. I only ever read The Dying Earth for the D&D tie-in and it didn’t stick with
me.
 sfoil says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:28 pm ~new~
The Dying Earth was Vance’s first published work and is a fairly poor representative of massive
amount of work he wrote afterwards.

o souleater says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:23 pm ~new~
The Iron Druid series by Kevin Hearne reminds me of the Harry Dresden books
Seveneves by Neal Stephenson (Or anything by Neal Stevenson)
Peter F Hamilton is also quite good.

 Aftagley says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:46 pm ~new~
The Iron Druid series by Kevin Hearne reminds me of the Harry Dresden books
If you liked the Iron Druid and Dresden, have you checked out the Nightside series by Simon R
Green? It’s pulpy and stupid, but it manages to be a good romp.

June 17, 2020 at 5:30 pm ~new~
I liked the Iron Druid books at first, but felt they started going off the rails Around his trip up
yggdrasil and I couldn’t stand his apprentice / lover and checked out at that point (Book 8? 9?).
I have nothing against good popcorn fiction so I’ll check the other series out, thanks!
o noyann says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:37 pm ~new~

Rudy Rucker. Less known, but interesting SciFi. Can be a bit ideosyncratic (e.g. abundant
Californian surfer slang in some books, you wave?, worldbuilding a bit burdened by the
mathematical concepts they illustrage) but mostly still good reading. Much is free for download.
I can fully recommend the Ware tetralogy.

 Bobobob says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:41 pm ~new~
He also wrote a great math/philosophy book, Infinity and the Mind.

June 17, 2020 at 5:32 pm ~new~
Read him in HS along with Sterling, Gibson, early Stephenson et al, but thanks!
o John Schilling says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:55 pm ~new~
The one(s) you’re conspicuously missing are the Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle collaborations. Each of
them separately is first-rate, the two in combination are Heinlein-level superb and in ways that
overlap many of your other choices. Pick one whose general subject appeals, and have at it.
Other suggestions:
Vernor Vinge, starting with “A Fire Upon the Deep”, will scratch the Reynolds/Watts itch
Ken MacLeod, probably start with the Fall Revolution series (but maybe one of the more recent
ones will appeal more), think Mieville/Stephenson
Ian MacDonald’s recent “Luna” trilogy is Stephensonesque with a nod to a particular RAH work.
Alexis Gilliland’s “Rosinante” trilogy is a bit dated, but I’m about 50% certain James S.A. Corey
named their favorite spaceship after it.
Jack McDevitt does some pretty good work, maybe think Reynolds Lite.
Charles Sheffield is no longer active, but was somewhere on the Asimov/Reynolds continuum.
Ben Bova is still active but I haven’t liked his latest; his earlier work fits between Asimov and
Heinlein without quite reaching the level of either.
A. Bertram Chandler did some good old-school space opera which might interest you.
Walter Jon Williams, also no longer active but did lots of good stuff scattered across too many
subgenres to count. I’m particularly fond of Aristoi.
Other contemporary authors worth a look, not going to try to characterize them all: Brenda
Cooper, Allen Steele, Timothy Zahn, Michael Flynn, and Karl Schroeder.
June 17, 2020 at 6:03 pm ~new~
Thanks for the reminder of Pournelle. I’ve actually read a lot of Niven and Footfall, Fallen Angels,
and Lucifer’s Hammer but I’d forgotten I wanted to check out the CoDominion books.
Walter Jon Williams and Timothy Zahn are also on my quite liked list, I just couldn’t list everything
off the top of my head.
I read some of Bova (Jupiter?) and to be honest I remember it being sort of forgettable.
Thanks for the other recommendations and reminders as well. I think at least some of these are in
the Baen Free Library too..


June 17, 2020 at 6:24 pm ~new~
Yeah “Jupiter” is one of Bova’s later works; pretty much everything post-2000 and especially the
ones named after planets fall into that category. Try, hmm, “Colony” (1978) for good early-period
Bova.
 jewelersshop says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:03 pm ~new~
+1 to Michael Flynn.
Also maybe Walter Tevis or Jasper Fforde? The latter’s Tuesday Next series is sort of steampunk
England with time travel (not for everyone, just for the Chronoguard) where riots break out over
surrealist art and productions of Shakespeare plays go kind of like Rocky Horror Picture Show
showings.
o ltowel says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:59 pm ~new~
I liked the Interdependency a lot and would suggest reading it, but it suffers from Scalzi-
protagonist and the last book coming out Mid april this year. It seems like it’s supposed to be a
global warming allegory/fall of the roman empire story, but a lot of what’s being said is just so on
the nose.
I really enjoyed and recommend Children of Time which benefits from having some relatively alien
aliens.
o Doctor Mist says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:07 pm ~new~
At the risk of being self-serving or biased, your taste suggests to me that you might like the two
novels by my late brother-in-law Bill Adams and his cousin Cecil Brooks, which I have just released
on Kindle: The Unwound Way and The End of Fame (previously Del Rey Discovery paperbacks).
The author that Bill always most reminded me of was Bujold, though once I told him so, he
prudently refused to read her.
If you have already read them, my thanks. Getting them out there has been a big job and seeing
an occasional sale is a big boost. I had hoped to have Bill’s first, unpublished novel, out by now,
but there have been various hurdles.

o mike529 says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:27 pm ~new~
I found the Flight of the Silvers books to be fun light reads.
Similar to Worm, but thankfully less verbose.

June 17, 2020 at 5:42 pm ~new~
Thanks, I’ll check them out.

o noyann says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:32 pm ~new~
I definitely not recommend (this is a CW thread, right? So why not be warring on something that is
culture?): The Expanse by Corey. Although an interesting concept of aliens (kinda) making contact,
ditto intra-humanity conflicts, ditto humanity growing outward through the galaxies, its characters
had too much of an artificially synthesized plastic-y (and at the same time boilerplate cliché) feel to
them, and the worlds/situations/settings felt like they were written with half a mind set on the
movie/TV contract: shallow visual bombast. * (I usually read complete works (and writing notes, or
diaries, where available**) of an author, but with this series I gave up at book 4. Bahhh. )
* If you have one eye set on secondary aims, you only have one left for your work of art, which
will lose 1/3 of its dimensionality. And that will show.
** To understand better this author’s path of growth, or the metamorphoses from a brief idea in a
diary entry to a tentative scene to a chapter to a world.

June 17, 2020 at 5:34 pm ~new~
Books were poorly written (at least what I tried), but I really liked TV series and I strongly
recommend watching it.

June 17, 2020 at 5:39 pm ~new~
;I was really liking the expanse until book 5 (I think). The shocking series swerve hit as I was
reading current news about the part of Iraq I was in falling to ISIS and the sychronicity led me to
drop the series and walk away. Finding out their solution to that was a pseudo generation skip
killed my desire to give it another chance.
I liked the first 3 seasons a lot but won’t be watching the rest to avoid the bit above.
o Plumber says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:54 pm ~new~
I really liked First and Last Men by Olaf Stapledon, plus Rainbow Mars,Draco’s Tavern, and sone
other works by Larry Niven.
I very much liked his fantasy works better, but Ted Chiang had some okay SF as well.
June 17, 2020 at 4:43 pm ~new~
The first volume of Das Kapital reminded me of Stapledon.

 Plumber says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:31 pm ~new~
@DavidFriedman,
So I recommended one guy who reads like Marx, one right-libertarian, and one whatever Ted
Chiang is (judging by his age and his NYTimes probably some flavor of left-liberal-progressive)?
I now need to recommend a left-anarchist (LeGuin?), a New Dealer (early Bradbury?), a
traditionalst (Kipling?), and a fascist (?) to hit all sides now!

June 17, 2020 at 10:13 pm ~new~
You might want to read Eric Flint, if you haven’t. He’s a patriotic American labor union socialist.
It isn’t that Stapledon reads as if inspired by Marx but that Marx reads as if inspired by, or written
by, Stapledon. Not the economics but the broad sweet of history.
Clearly someone had a time machine.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 6:30 pm ~new~
Thanks for the recommendations!

 Plumber says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:21 pm ~new~
You’re very welcome @Trofim_Lysenko!

o roflc0ptic says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:30 pm ~new~
I see you mentioned Stephen R Donaldson. Did you read the gap sequence? The style is pleasantly
different from the overwrought writing in Thomas Covenant. He’s 2/3rds through a new trilogy
called the great God’s war. I just read them last week. The first book was kind of all setup, limited
depth, but I found the second immensely compelling.
As kind of an aside, Donaldson explores different psychologies of sexual violence in both the
Chronicles and the Gap Sequence, and has the consequences of that violence drive huge parts of
the narrative arc. In great God’s war, he inverts this: he motivates a character to be rigidly
obsessed with consent, and then sets up a scenario in which his rigid application of consen
principles does immense harm to the person he’s attempting to protect. Perhaps it turns out alright
in the end, but it’s fucking hilarious. Also relatable, in a “man I wish that woman still talked to me”
sort of way. You tell someone you don’t think they’re capable of uncoerced consent one time…
June 17, 2020 at 6:27 pm ~new~
Just the 6 Thomas Covenant books. I’ll check the others out, thanks. And yes, I’ve received very
bad responses for even saying I’ve read them, much less saying I thought they were interesting
books.
o sfoil says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:35 pm ~new~
Your tastes runs a little pulpier than mine, but I’ll keep that in mind.
James Blish for the “serious pulp” side – I’ve liked everything I’ve read of his, but haven’t read a
whole lot. Cities in Flight, Surface Tension, and a few novellas where I thought he put in way more
thought and effort than he needed to.
John C. Wright, specifically The Golden Age. If you liked Rajaniemi and Mieville you need to read
this. Don’t expect his other writing to reach that level, though I think you’ll find it worth looking
into.
Jack Vance, a good start is The Demon Princes. He was a major influence on Wolfe and Zelazny
and is holds up very well in his own right.

Greg Egan, I’ve only read Diaspora and Permutation City but recommend both.
Stanislaw Lem, either Solaris or Cyberiad are good places to start.
Vernor Vinge, A Fire Upon the Deep and A Deepness in the Sky.
o SamChevre says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:52 pm ~new~
Books I like overlap with yours a lot–some others I like also:
Tamora Pierce – YA but really good YA. Think the Trickster books are the strongest, but I’ve reread
everything she wrote.
Tad Williams – I like the Otherland books slightly better than the Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn
books, but both are great.
Katherine Addison’s Goblin Emperor
As much romance as fantasy, but Patricia Briggs is an enjoyable read.
Also, Lloyd Alexander’s Prydain series – yes, they are children’s books, but they are well worth
reading and re-reading.

o matkoniecz says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:08 pm ~new~
Alastair Reynolds – House of Suns
I really liked it, mostly for magnificently large scale without diminishing it.
Alastair Reynolds – Thousandth Night
This is a short story that got expanded into House of Suns, very similar in the style.
o David W says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:16 pm ~new~
Your list overlaps my taste extensively, so I’m going to be spending some time mining the thread.
It’s only fair that I give some back. The piece that convinced me is your ‘liked some of their work’
authors, actually.
Not fantasy exactly but scratches the same itch: Harald by David Friedman (yes, this one). First
fiction book I’ve read where logistics and morale and alliances are all treated with the respect they
deserve.
Not quite Pratchett, Robert Asprin’s Myth series is light and fun.
I don’t see Robin McKinley on your list. I recommend the Damar books (The Blue Sword, The Hero
and the Crown). She’s also written a number of fairy tales reimagined that are nice, although not
where I’d start reading. Contemplative rainy-day type books.

You list Flint and Lackey but not Freer: maybe that means The Shadow of the Lion series will be
new to you? Collaboration between all three authors, stronger than any of them alone. Fantasy set
in a semi-historical Venice, fairly low powered magic focused on souls rather than physical effects.
Speaking of Flint and Freer collaborations: Joe’s World series (the Philosophical Strangler) is
absolutely hilarious.
Another Baen author to recommend is David Drake. I would skip his early stuff where he was
exorcising demons of Vietnam, but the RCN series starting at With the Lightnings feels like
Pournelle, except that it’s Rome v Carthage in Space. Typically his plots are mined from actual
history which helps his verisimilitude.
Barry Hughart only wrote one book to my knowledge, but it’s awesome: The Chronicles of Master Li
and Number Ten Ox. Set in mythical China, hilarious yet also the only book I’ve found that feels
like the same genre as the Romance of the Three Kingdoms.
The closest I’ve found to Master Li is Yamada Monogatori: Demon Hunter, by Richard Parks, noir
set in mystical Japan. Not as impressive but still worth a few hours.
Closer to Butcher: Hot Lead, Cold Iron by Ari Marmell has the noir adventures of a down on his luck
Fae. Only read him if you’re out of Dresden books, though.
More recent, Rachel Aaron has two series I can recommend. The Legend of Eli Monpress is set in a
world that takes animism seriously: the titular character begins the series by breaking out of prison
by sweet-talking the spirit of the door to his cell. In a different style, Nice Dragons Finish Last
beginning the Heartstriker’s series is basically Shadowrun with the serial numbers filed off.
Nathan Lowell’s Quarter Share series – can’t put it better than the author himself: “Nathan centers
on the people behind the scenes–ordinary men and women trying to make a living in the depths of
space. In his novels, there are no bug-eyed monsters, or galactic space battles, instead he paints a
richly vivid and realistic world where the “hero” uses hard work and his own innate talents to
improve his station and the lives of those of his community.” Soothing, but still fun.
Similar low-stakes sci-fi, E.M. Foner’s Date Night on Union Station.
To go the complete opposite route, Glen Cook’s Black Company series really makes you root for the
villains, and he doesn’t even try to make you consider them the lesser evil.
On the fluffier side, Anne McCaffrey’s Dragonriders of Pern series. Definitely on the junk food end
of the spectrum, but if you’re desperate…

 SamChevre says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:44 pm ~new~
Just a second–Shadow of the Lion is awesome.

o AliceToBob says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:48 pm ~new~
Sailing to Sarantium by Guy Gavriel Kay

o Phigment says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:04 pm ~new~
Glen Cook
Lots of his books are good, but more specifically:
The Dragon Never Sleeps is amazing Sci-fi that no one has ever heard of. It’s great. Read it right
now.
The Chronicles of the Black Company are what he’s probably best known for, and they’re good.
Gritty, dark fantasy where wizards clash and soldiers get caught in the middle.
Swordbearer is pretty epic swords and sorcery. It’s like Elric, but played completely straight.
June 17, 2020 at 11:15 pm ~new~
Ok, holy crap! I give up trying to respond individually to everyone without spamming the new
comment widget, but thank you, everyone! Feel free to keep recommending stuff/discussing with
each other.
The weird part (for me) is the feeling of having PROBABLY read some of the books I’m finding
when looking into these authors…and being unable to remember!

June 18, 2020 at 12:36 am ~new~
Part of why you get good answer is listing of books that you liked.
Far too often someone asks “anything to read that is ?” and then asnswers to all through proposals
“thanks, but I already read that”.

o alnkpa says:
June 18, 2020 at 3:19 am ~new~
I like the Terra Ignota series. It’s sci-fi written by art historian Ada Palmer.
18. thepenforests says:

June 17, 2020 at 11:28 am ~new~
I hope it’s okay if I repost my advice ask from the last open thread, since the new thread got
posted a bit early and I was getting some good responses (thanks to those who commented, it was
much appreciated).
Anyway: just got laid off, looking for job advice.
Background: I have a PhD in physics with a focus on computational work (ie simulations). Since
then I have two years of experience working as a software engineer, mostly with Java, but some
C# and a tiny bit of Javascript as well. I’ve also picked up some of the usual ancillary skills: git,
jenkins, jira, etc.
To be honest though, I’m really looking for a job in anything but software development at this
point. I don’t really like the work, and I’m not that good at it either. I feel like my actual
comparative advantage lies more on the softer side of the skill spectrum: things like taking in large
quantities of information, synthesizing it, writing up summaries for audiences of varying levels of
technical sophistication, giving presentations to audiences of varying levels of technical
sophistication – or heck, even just explaining things to coworkers. I’m *really* good at those
things, and even on my best day I’m just a mediocre programmer.
That being said, it’s not like I’m opposed to technical work, or even all work that involves
programming. If it’s a job where I’m asked to *use* code in the course of doing my work, then
awesome, sign me up. But a job where my actual goal is to *produce* code, as a product that the
company will sell? No, not my thing.
In general I feel like I have a pretty valuable skillset, and I don’t really doubt that I could provide a
lot of value to a lot of companies. But I also don’t really know where to start looking. My pitch is
basically “well-rounded generically smart person with solid soft and technical skills”, and I don’t
know what you do with that. I’ve heard “data scientist” from some of my friends, but I don’t know,
that just seems like consigning myself to a life of using SQL to extract minute trends out of vast,
inscrutable datasets. Which, ugh. But maybe I have the wrong impression of data science – or
maybe working with vast, inscrutable datasets is more enjoyable than it sounds.
Other relevant info: I live in a small-ish Canadian city, which I know is going to heavily limit my
options. I’d prefer not to move if at all possible, but I won’t entirely rule it out (I’ll be staying in
Canada no matter what though, so in practice moving would likely entail either Toronto or
Vancouver). Also, work/life balance is pretty damn important to me. Like anything, it’s negotiable
to some degree, but only to a point. Again, I know this might limit my options.
Anyway, all advice is appreciated, including straight-up job recommendations, outside-the-box
advice, or advice that basically says “you’re looking at all of this in entirely the wrong way you
idiot”.
(Oh, or just generic advice: stuff like how to write good resumes or LinkedIn profiles, what to
do/not do at interviews, how to negotiate a salary, etc)

o NostalgiaForInfinity says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:19 pm ~new~
Product management? A big part of that is the kind of soft skills you describe, spending a lot of
time talking to software engineers and non-technical people. Plus it allows you to use some of your
existing experience so you aren’t starting from scratch.
Most commercial data science is overrated in terms of how interesting it is in practice (I am a data
scientist). Does pay well though.

o Tenacious D says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:29 pm ~new~
Which region of Canada are you in, if you don’t mind saying? It sounds like your skills and interests
would be a good fit for the type of boutique software shop or consulting firm that services the main
local primary industry. For example, I live on the east coast and have a couple of friends who work
for companies selling planning software (and associated analysis and training) to the forestry
sector, and GIS software for offshore oil and gas. Depending on where you are, there should be
similar shops around sectors like agriculture, aquaculture/fisheries, mining, manufacturing, etc.
 thepenforests says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:58 pm ~new~
East coast as well actually – Halifax to be precise (don’t know why I was being coy really, I’ve
posted that before on SSC)

o Ms. Morgendorffer says:
June 18, 2020 at 12:31 am ~new~
Adjacent to data scientist is BI consultant / developper. This is my current job and I like it a lot.
Basically it revolves around using database knowledge on how to model data, developping ETL jobs
to move data from system to system and process and clean them, and / or using reporting tools to
create dashboards so other teams / decision makers can have an up to date overview of what’s
happening in the company.
I say and/or because while the postercard for a BI consultant is :
Analyse source systems on one hand and problems encountered by different teams on the other
hand
Devise a Datawarehouse
Create ETL jobs to load daily said DWH from source systems
Create reports / extractions / system feeds to help said teams
the skillset allows to do anything where you want to do something with data, like my last mission
where I was in charge of creating the processing part of credit card clearing files in a bank.
The skillset also requires that you understand the problems other are facing so you can devise
good solutions for them. You’ll usually be invested from the business requirement definition part to
the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the production system after implementation, and see
a lot of functional domains.
It can be very diverse, and (at least where I am) there’s a large demande for those skills.
You could have a look at Talend, a free ETL based on Java, and brush up your SQL-fu, maybe read
a book on what a datawarehouse is (slowly changing dimensions, usefullness of different
denormalization schemes), and see if there’s any opening for a BI consultant where you live.
19. nkurz says:

June 17, 2020 at 11:20 am ~new~
Since Scott mentioned him in the last open thread (and in the header) it might be of interest that
an interview with Peter Turchin came out in Time Magazine this week:
In 2010, after analyzing historical cycles of instability, Turchin made a prediction that was
published at the time in the journal Nature: America will suffer a period of major social upheaval
beginning around 2020.
…
Some were skeptical, Turchin says, because “people did not understand that I was making scientific
predictions, not prophecies.”
Then 2020 came.
…
While he feels validated, Turchin is horrified to be right. “As a scientist, I feel vindicated,” he says.
“But on the other hand, I am an American and have to live through these hard times.”
https://time.com/5852397/turchin-2020-prediction/.
20. Two McMillion says:

June 17, 2020 at 10:47 am ~new~
When I was a child my parents took me to a petting zoo. The zoo was at a state park and consisted
mostly of stereotypical farm animals: cows, horses, an ostrich for some reason, and goats.
You pet the goats at a fence with a gap near the bottom large enough for a goat head to fit
through. There were only a few goats at the fence when I got there, one mostly white with brown
patches and another mostly brown with white patches. The brown one with white patches wasn’t
interested but the white one with brown patches came to the fence and I spent an enjoyable few
minutes petting its head and talking to it.
After a while another goat wondered over. This one was all black. It came over to the fence but
didn’t stick its head through. It had this sort of lazy appearance, just standing there, chewing
something (its cud? Do goats chew cud?), looking at me through half-lidded eyes. Its eye were
bright blue. I remember that distinctly. Anyway, it came over and stood watching me pet the other
goat, chewing, chewing, tongue snaking out to lick its lips. I said to it, “Hello.”
And the goat- I swear to Batman- paused in its chewing, looked at me, and said in an amused
voice, “Hello.”
I ran away screaming and demanded that my parents take me home. I could never make them
understand what I was going on about. In the years since the incident, I’ve always regretted that
decision. What would have happened if I had stayed with the goat that talked? What new things
might I have learned? What new world could have opened up for me?
Alas, we’ll never know. Such is life.

o bullseye says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:40 am ~new~

Do goats chew cud?
They’re kosher, so yes.
o keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:23 pm ~new~
Are you sure you aren’t confabulating a scene from the movie The VVitch into a story from your
childhood?
21. Atlas says:

June 17, 2020 at 10:46 am ~new~
I think a core issue here is that the arbitrary, Protean nature of the accusation of “racism” makes it
impossible to defend against unless its incoherence is clearly exposed. Related to my comments
below, if you look at e.g. the posts of John Jackson on the issue, I think it’s hard to respond to the
case for cancellation here by grasping at technicalities rather than challenging its core premises.
Michael Levin, as always, had a thorough and insightful explication of why “racism” is such a
vacuous word:
5.6. “Racism”
“Racism” is a Janus word (see section 3.8) whose evaluative face predominates; calling someone or
something “racist” automatically condemns him or it. In fact, the fierce emotions accompanying
“racism” suggest that its core meaning is “grossly improper race consciousness.” Yet at the same time
“racism” is freely used of an enormous range of beliefs, attitudes and practices, many of which seem
in no way grossly improper, or improper at all. That is why the word serves only to obscure. The
chief problem the word creates is that of begged questions. Precisely because things
racist are bad by definition, it is tempting to try to force condemnation of an attitude
or practice by labeling it “racist,” when in point of logic the attitude or practice in
question must first be shown to be bad by some independent standard before it can be
so labeled. In legal language, “racism” is conclusory, and cannot be used as a premise. Yet, because
incessant denunciations of “racism” has made the epithet unchallengeable, that is often just how it is
used.
Natural Janus-words, which inherit their evaluative force from a social consensus about the value of
their referents, do not lend themselves to this kind of abuse. Since everyone agrees and is known to
agree about what sort of butter is fit to eat, no one would try to condemn perfectly fresh butter by
calling it “rancid.” But “racism” as currently used did not inherit its negative force from a universal
dislike of its referent. It might once have denoted Hitlerian racial beliefs while also encoding
rejection of those beliefs—and when it did, less egregious racial offenses were called “bigotry” or
“prejudice.” In that usage, racism was a systematic theory; this theory entailed certain attitudes and
modes of behavior, but those attitudes and behaviors did not by themselves constitute racism. By
contrast, today’s “racism” was coined for the purpose of condemnation (in part by summoning up
emotions evoked by the old word), and for the condemnation of anything belonging to almost any
category. I trust the reader will agree that all he can conclude when he hears “racist” employed
today is that its referent is something to do with race that the speaker dislikes. “Racism” is not so
much uttered as shouted; its conversational function is to shut conversation down.
This torrent of unpleasantness saturates whatever the word is attached to, however
arbitrary the attachment. What has created an aversion to “racism” is less
disapproval of what the word denotes than a wish to avoid anti-racist wrath.
Calling claims of genetic race differences “racist,” in particular, begs not one but four questions: (1)
Are race differences in themselves bad? (2) Is believing in race differences bad? (3) Is saying there
are race differences bad? (4) Is studying race differences bad? Once it is realized that an
affirmative answer to each of these questions must be established before the charge of
racism can be made to stick, the charge itself collapses. Consider question (1) first. Race
differences, as facts of nature, have no moral dimension. They either exist or do not exist. Reality
may frustrate our wishes, but it is not in itself bad or good. Since a thing must be bad to be racist,
race differences, if they exist, are not racist.
The only challenge I can think of to this seeming truism is the contention that facts—about race, or
society, or the world in general—do not exist apart from belief in them, but rather are “socially
constructed,” that is, exist only insofar as we believe in and value them. (Devotees of this view have
lately insisted that the medium of construction is discourse.) The quickest way with such Berkeleyan
idealism is to observe that if all facts about race are constructed, so must be the fact that anyone
believes in race differences.13 On the constructionist theory, there are hereditarians only because
there are people who believe in and talk as if there were hereditarians. Were this so, constructionists
could end belief in race differences merely by ceasing to believe, and convincing others to cease
believing, that anyone believes in race differences. Their constant inveighing against “racism” shows
that not even constructionists themselves take their theory seriously.
Turning to (2), factual beliefs in themselves are merely true or false, not good or evil.
Therefore, belief in race differences cannot, in itself, be racist. The motives for holding such beliefs
may be bad—some people may believe whites more intelligent than blacks from a desire to find
blacks inferior—but there is nothing wrong with believing in race differences from estimable
motives, such as intellectual persuasion. Precisely the same assessment applies to assertions, which,
like beliefs, are merely true or false, not good or bad. A maliciously motivated act of asserting that
blacks are less intelligent than whites may be bad, and possibly racist, but I have repeatedly pointed
out good reasons for making this assertion, such as a desire for justice. Calling attention to race
differences, considered apart from the motives for doing so, is not inherently racist. Finally, research
into race differences is bad, and potentially racist, only if driven by bad motives, such as active
enjoyment of humiliating blacks. But, once again, such research can just as easily be driven by good
motives, such as curiosity or a desire for justice. So research into race differences is not in itself
racist.
Many people grudgingly admit that discussing race differences may not be inherently bad, but warn
that it risks bad consequences, including distress to blacks and encouragement of hate. The question
is then whether blindness to these possibilities is so negligent and “insensitive” as to be “racist.” This
is a matter of judgment, of course, but a strong case can be made against the “racism” verdict. After
all, frank discussion of almost any important issue is bound to offend somebody. Talking about
evolution bothers religious fundamentalists, yet is morally permitted. And how sensitive must one be
to avoid being a “racist”? To judge from their blanket condemnation of all talk of race differences,
many people accept only silence as adequate, turning “sensitivity” into a demand for self-censorship.
All told, “racism” is so strong a word that only active malevolence can merit it, not unintentional
disregard of black feelings.
That empirical beliefs cannot be criticized on moral grounds may have eluded Jaynes and Williams
(1989):
For some people, racism means any form of race recognition, especially instances in which members
of privileged groups act in a manner injurious to a disadvantaged group. Others, however, reserve
the term for patterns of belief and related actions that overtly embrace the notion of genetic or
biological differences between groups. Still others use the term to designate feelings of cultural
superiority.… We use the term racism to denote biological racism, as in the second interpretation
above. Societal racism, borrowing from Frederickson (1971), is used to denote negative racial
attitudes or outcomes that lack a clear basis in a belief in inherent racial inferiority [sic]. Mere
recognition of social groups based on “racial” characteristics is not treated here as a form of racism,
but as being “race conscious.” Cultural preferences that do not include systematic ranking of social
groups and clear hostility toward out-groups is termed ethnocentrism. The concept of racism,
however qualified and defined, involves a value judgment. Racism of whatever variety is
undesirable; racist outcomes are wrong; and people who advocate racist ideas are typically viewed
as being morally deficient, if not dangerous. (556; there is no further analysis of “racism,” or index
entry for “racism”)
Since they identify “racism” with “the notion of genetic or biological differences between groups,” an
ostensibly factual belief, Jaynes and Williams have at first glance so defined it as to avoid a “value
judgment.” But they immediately add that racism does involve a value judgment, and is, moreover,
undesirable. They do not, it is true, infer the biological identity of all groups from the undesirable
racist character of believing otherwise; rather, they bury the factual issue beneath an avalanche of
pejoratives—”wrong,” “morally deficient,” “dangerous.”
Jaynes and Williams’ foray into semantics illustrates the conflict between the negative connotation
of “racism” and its chosen referent. The repeated occurrence of this clash within commonly
offered definitions suggests that no coherent definition of “racism” is possible and the
word consequently unusable. Many people would adopt the third definition mentioned in the
citation from Jaynes and Williams, namely that “racism” is belief in racial superiority. The first
point to make about this proposal is that it spares the belief that whites are more intelligent and self-
restrained than blacks, for intelligence and time preference are empirically defined traits whose
ascription implies no value judgment (again see section 3.8). One may well value intelligence and
self-restraint, and anyone who does so, while also believing that whites typically possess these traits
to a greater degree than blacks, is committed to believing that whites typically possess more of
something valuable. But the belief that whites are more intelligent than blacks does not by itself
imply this, so is not “racist” in the sense now under consideration.
In any event the definition is unsatisfactory. It takes belief in the superiority of one race to another to
be inherently bad, whereas, or so I argue in chapter 7, such beliefs are typically “operationalized” as
factual beliefs. As factual beliefs are not good or bad per se, “operationalized” judgments of racial
superiority are not good or bad either. Moreover, as we will also see, these beliefs are supported by
the evidence (and probably accepted by the reader), so since there is nothing wrong with accepting
reasonable beliefs, do not deserve to be stigmatized. Indeed, there seems nothing inherently wrong
with thinking one’s own group better in a frankly cheer-leading sense. Most individuals experience
this impulse, and, when black-white comparisons are not at issue, it is considered healthy. I am not
talking of venomous emotions like hatred, but the feeling that “British is best,” the vicarious
satisfaction many Jews take in the number of Jewish Nobel laureates, and other forms of ethnic
pride. Racists “are typically viewed as being morally deficient, if not dangerous,” say Jaynes and
Williams, yet an American who thinks the Japanese are crazy to risk their lives eating fugu is not
dangerous, nor is a German calmly citing Beethoven to prove the superiority of German culture
morally deficient. It is hard to see why these attitudes are bad enough to be “racist.”
Now the fact is that, whether they should or not, most people do value intelligence, so the statement
that blacks are typically less intelligent than whites, no matter how intended, is usually perceived as
derogatory. (“Intelligence is valuable, and blacks are inferior to whites in respect of this valuable
trait” is an “operationalized” value judgment.) And, while unflattering beliefs about groups held on
good grounds are acceptable, what of “stereotypers” who hold such beliefs because they want to, and
use evidence selectively to confirm what they want to believe?14 Defining “racism” as the desire that
blacks lack highly-valued traits15 captures how such people think, and, as this desire is unattractive,
it appears consistent with the negative force of “racism.” Yet this definition, too, is unsatisfactory.
For one thing, while racism is commonly said to pervade American society, there is relatively little
racism in this sense. Once bad motives are required, negative beliefs stemming from
observation rather than animus are excluded. “Unconscious” and “institutional”
racism become contradictions in terms. Finally, and less apt to be noticed, there are many
noninvidious—hence non-“racist”—reasons for wanting blacks to have disvalued traits. Whites may
hope for a genetic black IQ deficit to absolve them of guilt for black failure, just as any defendant in a
liability suit hopes the plaintiff’s case will unravel. Or else, whites may be indulging the
understandable impulse to resist those who willfully personalize every disagreement. It is human
nature to oppose whatever the office blowhard is for, and whites, weary of blame for every black
failure, naturally want the blame-mongers shown up by the existence of innate black shortcomings.
These impulse are not bad, let alone “racist.”
Similar problems face the broader definition of “racism” as hatred of racial groups other than one’s
own. Without denying the existence or corrosiveness of race hatred, this attitude must be
distinguished from numerous milder ones. Hatred implies a desire to destroy, yet, just as it is
possible to sneer at pro wrestling fans or readers of supermarket tabloids without hating them, it is
possible to dislike black music without wanting it banned, or dislike the black personal style and
wish to avoid blacks altogether without wanting to see blacks suffer. One may avoid black
neighborhoods for fear of crime while sympathizing with black victims of black criminals. None of
these feelings are “racist” if racism implies hatred—yet anyone who confesses distaste for black
music or admits wishing to minimize contact with blacks will surely be branded “racist.” Those who
bandy “racism” in this way use it too broadly to mean “race hatred.”
“Racism” is stretched to its snapping point when defined, as it often is, as “treatment of individuals
on the basis of their race.” More so than any other, this definition is too sweeping to support the
negative overtones of “racism,” and condemns legitimate practices virtually by word magic. There is
nothing obviously wrong with sending Asian policemen to infiltrate Asian gangs, or casting a white
woman as Desdemona, or preferring to marry someone of one’s own race, all counted as “racist” by
this definition
A few writers have tried to salvage the word by neutralizing it, defining it as race-consciousness of
any sort while dropping the axiom that all forms of racism are bad. D’Sousza’s (1995) term “rational
racism” is a stab at neutrality. Such attempts are unlikely to succeed, in my view, for the pejorative
connotations of “racism” have become too deeply entrenched. In fact, contemporary discourse
combines the worst of both worlds, using the neutral and the pejorative senses of “racism,” often in
the same breath. The unfortunate result is guilt by equivocation. Something is labeled “racist” in the
neutral sense; there is a switch to the pejorative sense; and what is innocent stands condemned. One
victim of this gambit was Dale Lick, a candidate for the presidency of Michigan State University.
Years prior to his candidacy he had said, a propos the recruitment of basketball players, “A black
athlete can actually outjump a white athlete, so they’re better at the game. All you need to do is turn
to the N.C.A.A. playoffs in basketball to see that the bulk of the players on those outstanding teams
are black.” Once made public, this remark and Lick himself were instantly called “racist” and Lick
was denied the job (New York Times 1993b, 1993c). His statement had indeed been “racist” in the
neutral sense—it was a generalization about race—but not “racist” in the bad sense, since there
seems nothing wrong with citing well-known facts, about basketball or anything else, in aid of a
conclusion they support. Yet Lick’s statement was treated as “racist” in the bad sense.
Jaynes and Williams write: “Many people question any scholarly use of this concept because it is so
manifestly value laden” (1989: 556), a question very much in order. The elasticity of “racism”
permits denunciation of virtually anything, including whites doing on Tuesday what
was demanded of them on Monday. Ignoring the racial impact of higher academic standards
for college athletes is racist, but so (as Dale Lick discovered) is noting the racial composition of
college basketball teams. It is racist to treat black executives as if they are special, racist to forget
their isolation. Media coverage of slum crime is racist, yet the media turning a blind eye to slum
crime is racist indifference to black victims. Too few police in black slums is also indifference—while
more police, when white, are an occupying army, or, when black, are Uncle Toms. It is racist to
overlook the deprived upbringing of black criminals, racist to insult the spiritual richness of black
life by pointing out these deprivations. Failure to act decisively against drugs lets them ravage the
black community; treating drug dealers harshly is an assault on black males. Movie and TV
depictions of blacks as jive-talking pimps are racist, but so are sugar-coated depictions of blacks as
middle-class. (Gates [1989] makes both complaints; DeMott [1996] calls media representation of
equality repellent.) Racist colonial powers exploited tribal rivalries in Africa, racist colonial powers
imposed the European concept of nationhood on rivalrous tribes. It is racist to say that black
children differ cognitively from white, and racist to ignore the black learning style.16
Jettisoning “racism” will not by itself end such nonsense, but nonsense is easier to spot
when shorn of verbal camouflage. There would remain the problem of labeling the position that
race differences exist and are important determinants of human affairs; Christopher Brand (1996)
has suggested “racial realism.” The important obligation is removal of verbal obstacles to clarity.
[My emphases]
o Two McMillion says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:51 am ~new~

Turning to (2), factual beliefs in themselves are merely true or false, not good or evil.
This is incorrect because factually incorrect beliefs are intrinsically evil. The utilitarian reasons for
this should be obvious.

 Atlas says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:01 am ~new~
This is incorrect because factually incorrect beliefs are intrinsically evil. The utilitarian reasons for
this should be obvious.
Maybe this is just rehashing Conflict vs. Mistake, but I’m afraid I don’t see why it’s obvious that
“factually incorrect beliefs are intrinsically evil.” For instance, was Ptolemy’s geocentrism, a
factually incorrect belief, intrinsically evil?

 Two McMillion says:

June 17, 2020 at 12:45 pm ~new~
Of course. The immense evil that his incorrect theory resulted in should make that clear.
 Atlas says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:16 pm ~new~
I’m still not quite following your train of thought here. Are you referring to the Catholic Church’s
attempt to suppress heliocentrism? If so, that was not a necessary consequence of the theory of
geocentrism, which most astronomers themselves believed before strong evidence against it
convinced them otherwise. Or, to take a trivial example, is falsely predicting that it will rain
tomorrow “intrinsically evil?” If not, then we have established that at least some factually incorrect
beliefs are not intrinsically evil.
Closer to the mark to me would seem to be the 16th Century Church’s belief that heliocentrism is a
heresy which must be prevented by e.g. putting books that propound it on a list of forbidden
books. Holding this belief is not, it seems to me, good or evil in itself; it could be driven by noble
intentions (sincere belief that immortal souls are at risk) or ignoble ones (dislike of curiosity/free
inquiry). As a belief, in itself, it is simply true or false, not good or evil.

Hide ↑
 zero says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:02 am ~new~
How do you determine what the facts are?


June 17, 2020 at 12:51 pm ~new~
I don’t have an epistemology vastly different from the rationalist standard, if that’s what you’re
asking. Sometimes we don’t know what the facts are, and often figuring out what they are is a
complex process. But that doesn’t mean you’re innocent if you believe something that is untrue.
Why would it?

June 17, 2020 at 11:33 am ~new~
The utilitarian reasons are not obvious.

Many false factual beliefs are undesirable from a utilitarian standpoint, but not all. Suppose that, as
I believe, God does not exist. The false belief that God will punish you for stealing, murdering, or
raping might well increase total utility.


June 17, 2020 at 12:52 pm ~new~
I can’t think of any examples of incorrect beliefs where replacing them with correct beliefs wouldn’t
be an improvement. The God example is an interesting choice, given the harm that has come from
religion throughout history.

June 17, 2020 at 1:16 pm ~new~
The God example is an interesting choice, given the harm that has come from religion throughout
history.
And yet the only examples I know of of societies explicitly atheist were enormously worse.
The question isn’t “did belief X cause harm,” it’s “did belief X result in more harm than its absence
would have resulted in.”

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 1:19 pm ~new~
be an improvement. The God example is an interesting choice, given the harm that has come from
religion throughout history.
This feels like “True state atheism has never been tried!” AFAIK, a place where the ruling class
improved the people by making them atheists has only ever happened in conjunction with false
beliefs far more harmful than any religion, false about things as fundamental as “how to grow
food.” If the alternative where the people’s beliefs are replaced “with correct beliefs” in your
opinion is imaginary, of course it’s a better world. Imaginary better worlds are a dime a dozen.
Hide ↑
 Scoop says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:45 pm ~new~
be an improvement.
Wearing a surgical mask will greatly protect the wearer against C19.
Trying various hard drugs, even once, will kill you.
The odds of you getting in an accident when driving drunk are very high.
These are all false beliefs that some people have that encourage them to act well. Some of these
people, obviously would continue wearing masks and abstaining from either drugs or DUI if
disabused of these notions. But others wouldn’t.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 1:49 pm ~new~
@DavidFriedman
Gods aren’t spirits. Plenty of societies have existed that did have a god or gods.
Also there are plenty of explicitly atheist societies within modern countries that aren’t noticeably
bad.
Hide ↑
 Nick says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:07 pm ~new~
@Two McMillion
be an improvement.
There are examples. Sam[]zdat wrote about gri-gri, for instance.
Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 12:59 pm ~new~
A lot of people think of the physical and the spiritual as two different modes of existence, but this
an error. If the spiritual exists, it is a part of this single reality as much as the stars and planets
are. There are not two different sets of facts; there is only one set of fact that may be more
confusing or less confusing. From this it follows that if moral realism is correct, the facts that make
it correct are facts about reality. They aren’t facts about distant spiritual ledger where abstract
concepts of good and evil are tabulated. They are facts about this universe right here.
Well, I am a moral realist. It follows that moral and factual errors are the same kind of error: both
involve a mistake about the nature of the reality we live in. If we call mistakes about moral facts
evil, then we must also call mistakes about factual matters evil.
Or to put it another way: If moral facts are facts about this reality, then the principle that if you tell
a lie the truth is forever your enemy applies to them as well. If you make a mistake about a factual
principle, you have made an enemy of moral truth as well as scientific truth, because those are
ultimately part of the same thing.
Thus: to be factually mistaken is evil.

 Randy M says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:03 pm ~new~
I was with you at first, but I’d think you are using “evil” in an uncommon way. Most people
consider it to reflect on intent in a way that “mistaken” contradicts.
Thus, to mislead is evil while to be misled is not.


June 17, 2020 at 1:22 pm ~new~
He’s actually using a traditional definition of evil rooted in Platonism. Evil is non-reality, the
privation of a good. It holds up logically if to be is Good.
An important distinction is then that only a subset of evils are moral failings, or you get the
ridiculous situation of saying “He said it would rain tomorrow and was wrong! EVIL!” with the
modern connotations.
Hide ↑
 Nick says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:26 pm ~new~
It follows that moral and factual errors are the same kind of error: both involve a mistake about the
nature of the reality we live in. If we call mistakes about moral facts evil, then we must also call
mistakes about factual matters evil.
That doesn’t follow at all. Errors about moral facts are in your judgment a subset of errors about
facts about reality. You are claiming, formally, that if we apply something to the subset, we have to
apply it to the superset. Why would you think that? That is like saying that if we call orange balls
basketballs, we have to call all balls basketballs.

 Atlas says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:28 pm ~new~
Well, I am a moral realist. It follows that moral and factual errors are the same kind of error: both
involve a mistake about the nature of the reality we live in. If we call mistakes about moral facts evil,
then we must also call mistakes about factual matters evil.
Actually, I don’t see that this conclusion follows from the premises. You have contended that all
moral statements are factual statements; very well, but it does not follow that all factual
statements are moral statements. (Affirming the consequent.)

Or to put it another way: If moral facts are facts about this reality, then the principle that if you tell
a lie the truth is forever your enemy applies to them as well. If you make a mistake about a factual
principle, you have made an enemy of moral truth as well as scientific truth, because those are
ultimately part of the same thing. [My emphasis]
Again, this risks becoming a rehash of conflict vs. mistake, because I think that mistakes and lies
are very different.
Incidentally, I myself am a tentative moral nihilist/skeptic, but in a way that probably differs little
substantively from many/most moral realists like yourself. That is, I think you can have factual
beliefs about what humans believe about morality, but I don’t think that you can have factual
beliefs about morality itself.

22. zero says:

June 17, 2020 at 10:42 am ~new~
What’s worse? Bad data supporting bad people or bad people arguing “Look, there’s a reason this
data is being suppressed, and it’s because we’re right”?

o albatross11 says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:12 am ~new~
Does it matter if the data being suppressed is in fact factually correct?

 Scoop says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:02 pm ~new~
You don’t suppress factually incorrect data; you demonstrate why it’s wrong.
23. Nancy Lebovitz says:

June 17, 2020 at 10:33 am ~new~
Universities in trouble
A convenient stash of links. I haven’t checked all of them, and metafilter is more SJ than I am.
The short version is that a lot of universities aren’t set up well for distance learning, a lot of them
(not necessarily the same ones) are dependent on money from tuition and fees and such. Also, a
lot of people learn better when they’re around people and/or want the social connections they can
make more easily in person.
Lawsuits against universities.
And there’s the question of to what extent graduates will be able to make money to pay off loans.
The situation was really bad *before* the virus.

24. baconbits9 says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:44 am ~new~
Boris Johnson was in a minor car accident today when a person ran in front of the motorcade
forcing the cars to come to an abrupt stop. It does not appear that any significant injuries
happened, still I think this is among the worst behaviors in the world. Specifically it uses someone
else’s good behavior as a weapon against them, it only works if the lead motorcycle stops. I would
argue that the overwhelming majority of people NOT taking advantage in other people’s good
behavior is a requirement for a high quality functioning society. This action should be immediately
condemned by protesters, not because it is a terrible act on its own but because the only plausible
reactions to these acts are worse behavior from the opposition.

o Gerry Quinn says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:59 am ~new~
It’s bad behaviour, but hardly an assassination attempt.

 Scoop says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:04 pm ~new~
Unless someone can read the mind of the person who did it, no one can know if it was an
assassination attempt (albeit one that was unlikely to succeed) or it wasn’t.

 Edward Scizorhands says:

June 17, 2020 at 12:37 pm ~new~
There’s no reason to assume assassination.
But baconbits9’s overall point is good: the only reason the person tried it was because they knew
the motorcade would stop. If your opponent really were evil they’d run you over and not care, but
because they care you now have a weapon to use against them.
This can easily lead to a cycle of escalations until someone does get run over and we end up right
where we were yesterday (don’t run in front of cars) at the cost of some lives.
 Scoop says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:48 pm ~new~
I agree there’s no reason to assume assassination. I just dislike people making confident assertions
about the intent of others, be they Trump, Hsu, the guy who ran in front of BoJo’s car or anyone
else.
We can’t ever know what others are thinking, and (though not in this case) a lot of the vitriol in
modern debate stems from the utter conviction many people have that they can read the minds of
others.
It’s a pet peeve.

Hide ↑
o keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:26 pm ~new~
Moral Blackmail is a really useful concept.

25. proyas says:

June 17, 2020 at 9:43 am ~new~
You’re designing a human-sized combat robot that, among other things, will be nearly impossible
for humans to beat in hand-to-hand combat. What features would you need to incorporate into the
robot’s design to achieve that?
The robot needs to be designed in such a way that every possible hand-to-hand attack from a
human will almost certainly fail, whether it’s a tackle, a hard punch or kick, any kind of joint or
limb lock, or any martial arts maneuver.
The robot can’t be bigger or heavier than an average human man, but it doesn’t need to be
humanoid.
o baconbits9 says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:48 am ~new~
Low center of gravity and spikes?

 rocoulm says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:56 am ~new~
If it needn’t be humanoid, just make it a spiky ball that rolls around trying to stab you in the
knees.
 proyas says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:10 am ~new~
A rolling ball design wouldn’t work well.
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/star-wars-robots-wouldnt-survive-the-real-world
o Statismagician says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:50 am ~new~
A humanoid robot wearing perfectly standard late-medieval plate armor accomplishes this neatly,
I’d think. Just put the fragile components in something shock-absorbing and make sure the joints
bend both ways.

o Randy M says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:51 am ~new~
Rotating flame throwers out of the question?

 proyas says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:08 am ~new~
No, so long as the flame thrower is integral to its body. Maybe it would have an internal tank full of
flammable fluid and then a nozzle on its exterior.
The problem is, the flame thrower would run out of ammo, and the robot would need to still
somehow be near-invulnerable to hand-to-hand attacks. The flame thrower can’t be its only
defense.
 rictic says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:58 am ~new~
If we have to consider its performance after it’s run out of flame thrower fuel, do we also have to
consider its performance after it has run out of energy?
Actually, that suggests another route. A robot that’s radioactive enough could be unbeatable at
hand to hand combat simply by virtue of being moderately durable and giving any attacker accute
radiation poisoning (until its radioactivite material decayed).

 Randy M says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:19 pm ~new~
I thought of that but held off for wondering what effect the radiation would have on the robot.
Could you shield it’s delicate portions? Or maybe it simply doesn’

Hide ↑
o noyann says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:52 am ~new~
Exude sticky stringy fast hardening glue on touch?
Spike it with taser electrodes?
If you had some Karate Kid Wall-E Number 5 in mind you need to set more constraints.
 proyas says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:05 am ~new~
I like the taser electrode spikes, but not the glue idea. The problem with the glue is that it could
also blow back or be smeared on the robot by an attacking human, which would gum up the
robot’s limbs and maybe cover important things with hardened glue.
 noyann says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:11 am ~new~
Teflon coating?
 proyas says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:07 am ~new~
Even if the Teflon solved the problem, the glue idea by itself isn’t enough to meet the design
requirements since the amount of glue is finite and could run out. The robot needs to be able to
defeat humans in hand-to-hand fighting without any kind of physical “ammo.”
See my earlier comment about the flamethrower.

Hide ↑
 noyann says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:26 am ~new~
Running out of matter becomes a problem, OK. But the same applies to the energy source for
attack or defense. It will run out also eventually. Just feint, run in circles around it, or otherwise
exhaust it for long enough, and the robot will eventually stop doing anything.
There is a grey area here. You could demand that it outlasts a single human attacker for a given
time, or a specified number of them, or a continuous flow of the youths of a nation thrown at it…
Hide ↑
 proyas says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:32 am ~new~
In response to that and another comment, I made up this rule:

An important rule is that the design can’t rely on integral weapons with finite ammo reserves. I see
your point about thinking of its general-purpose power source as itself being a type of internal
reserve no different from a flamethrower tank. For the purpose of this thought experiment, let’s
assume it’s OK for the robot to run away if its power is running too low to finish a fight. However,
it’s not OK for it to run away if any other onboard resource is about to run out.
Hide ↑
 proyas says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:37 am ~new~
Running out of matter becomes a problem, OK. But the same applies to the energy source for attack
or defense. It will run out also eventually. Just feint, run in circles around it, or otherwise exhaust it
for long enough, and the robot will eventually stop doing anything.
Assume the robot is smart enough to recognize these kinds of tactics as well as a human.
Also, this scenario you describe makes me think the robot should have the ability to gasp and
throw objects like bricks and rocks. If you were very fast on your feet and kept running around it
too fast for it to catch up to you, it would throw something like a brick or stone at you to hurt your
legs or cause a head injury.

Hide ↑
o Lambert says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:55 am ~new~
Humans are squishy, and waste a lot of their mass on gall bladders and stuff. If you try to punch
100kg of steel, titanium and carbon compsites, you’re going to have a bad time.
o MilesM says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:59 am ~new~
What else does it need to be able to do, besides being invulnerable?

I think a 170 lbs cube (or maybe a tetrahedron with sharpened edges, let’s make that sucker really
hard to move) of hardened steel containing the minimal amount of shock-mounted electronics
necessary for something to qualify as a “robot” might be pretty hard for a human to damage.
And does it need to be proof against scenarios using terrain – like being pushed off a cliff – or does
that go beyond “hand to hand combat?”
In that case, I might go with a huge ball of razor wire with a very small armored core.
 proyas says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:07 am ~new~
I wasn’t going to say this, but it also needs to be able to walk around at least as fast as a human,
and to carry and shoot a regular gun.

 Lambert says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:47 am ~new~
Why doesn’t the robot just shoot you?

 proyas says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:03 am ~new~
It still has to be able to win if it doesn’t have a gun. The gun might break or run out of bullets.
Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 12:39 pm ~new~
Mustard gas.
Hide ↑
 Lambert says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:11 pm ~new~
Use more gun

Hide ↑
 proyas says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:38 pm ~new~
Mustard gas.
I’m surprised no one brought up poison gas sooner.

June 17, 2020 at 3:53 pm ~new~
Most poisons don’t work fast enough to seriously impede a hand-to-hand attacker, unless you use
them in roughly flamethrower-fuel quantities.

Hide ↑
o LosLorenzo says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:46 am ~new~
Well, a flying drone with a gun would achieve this outdoor. Can’t be defeated hand-to-hand if it’s
15ft up. Doesn’t work indoors, though.

If indoor use is a requirement I’d go with titanium alloy exoskeleton, razor-sharp, poison-coated
spider. Micro-hooks on feet ensure firm grip on surface making it impossible to knock over. Doesn’t
work if you’re not allowed to ruin the floor, though.

 proyas says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:04 am ~new~
It has to be able to go everywhere humans can go on foot.

o LosLorenzo says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:50 am ~new~
Alternative design: Mutually assured destruction. Any old shape, but it has a mini-nuke and a sign
that reads “if you assault me I will detonate my mini-nuke” in all languages. It might not be able to
beat a human in hand-to-hand combat, but that was not specified. It will not ‘lose’ hand-to-hand,
worst case is a draw.

 proyas says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:13 am ~new~
I don’t like the mini-nuke idea for many reasons, but I think it’s a good idea to design the robots
with self-destruct bombs that can kill everyone within, say, a 15-foot radius. That way, if a human
somehow beat a robot in hand-to-hand combat and the robot knew it was about to lose, it would
blow itself up, killing the human.
Humans would be strongly deterred from attacking the robots if they knew victory would mean
losing their own lives.

June 17, 2020 at 11:08 am ~new~
Array of small flamethrowers covering 360-degree arc.
If that’s not the answer, what exactly is the problem we are trying to solve? What does it mean to
be beaten in “hand-to-hand combat”? Does it mean the robot is destroyed, or just prevented from
completing its mission – and if so, what sort of mission are we talking about? Does “hand-to-hand”
mean that the robot needs to use “hands”? How far along the axis from “literally a robotic arm” to
“flamethrower that kills would-be attacker before he gets within two meters” is the robot allowed to
go? And, do we only have to worry about the human attacker using his unaugmented body, or
might he be carrying a crowbar, pickaxe, can of spray paint, etc?

ETA: Ninja’d by Randy. And yes, the flamethrower will eventually run out of fuel. The robot’s
batteries will eventually run dry. Again, what exactly is the problem we are trying to solve?
 proyas says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:22 am ~new~
Again, what exactly is the problem we are trying to solve?
This is a challenge to design a robot that can, unarmed, defeat even the best, unaugmented
humans in hand-to-hand combat.
“Hand-to-hand” means the robot and human are inflicting injuries on the other through direct
physical contact.
An important rule is that the design can’t rely on integral weapons with finite ammo reserves. I see
your point about thinking of its general-purpose power source as itself being a type of internal
reserve no different from a flamethrower tank. For the purpose of this thought experiment, let’s
assume it’s OK for the robot to run away if its power is running too low to finish a fight. However,
it’s not OK for it to run away if any other onboard resource is about to run out.
 bullseye says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:45 am ~new~
The robot resembles a robotic wolf, and burns human flesh for fuel, thereby eliminating the fuel
problem. It also requires human fat to lubricate its joints, and so we discover what problem it is
trying to solve: the obesity epidemic.

o Fahundo says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:13 am ~new~
A spider-like robot consisting of a round head that contains most of its mass and 8-10 legs. The
robot only needs 3 or 4 legs to remain standing, which makes it practically immune to being
tripped or joint locked by a single human being. The head has 6 or more holes located around its
circumference in a horizontal ring. Each hole is just an opening through which a firearm housed
safely inside the head can shoot the target. The head is just made of something strong enough that
a man can’t pry it open with his bare hands.

o oriscratch says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:49 am ~new~
I think this has already been done with a combat robot called Son of Whyachi. It’s basically just a
>100 lbs tribar of steel spinning really fast attached to some wheels. The spinning part covers the
entire robot, so no matter where you try to hit it your limbs would probably get ripped off.
Here is is at 50% speed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9VymPqBCCI
Normal speed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDALLjxozIY

 oriscratch says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:15 pm ~new~
Ok, a few modifications. The average US male is 200 pounds, and Son of Whyachi (SOW) is 250
pounds. SOW is overpowered because it’s designed to fight metal robots and not humans, so we
can probably cut the weapon from 120 lbs bars to 20 lbs of blades without losing much
effectiveness. We can probably use a lighter weapon motor as well. We can then use the extra
weight to add bigger wheels (so it can drive on rough terrain) and faster drive motors (20 mph,
which is standard for fast combat robots and is plenty enough to outrun a human).
So now we have a giant 200 pound whir of spinning blades that can navigate most terrain, and it’s
coming at you at 20 mph. Completely doable with current technology. I know you had a
requirement that it should be able to throw and shoot things, but combat robot spinners have a
tendency to hit debris so hard that shoot off as projectiles anyway, and sometimes that debris even
gets embedded in the walls.
Without a conveniently located set of stairs or special equipment (like really tough string to tangle
the spinner without being cut), this would be pretty hard to beat.
o proyas says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:50 pm ~new~
My own thoughts:
-An insect- or spider-like robot would probably be best. For one thing, having more than four limbs
will mean that even a skilled human wrestler will not be able to pin down all of its limbs. There will
always be at least one free appendage with a knife at the end that can be stabbed into the
human’s body.
-At least one of the limbs should be as long as the legs of a human in the 99th percentile of leg
lengths. This will stop a pro kickboxer with long legs from standing far back and kicking the robot
from outside the latter’s reach. If you get close enough to strike the robot with some part of your
body, your torso will have to be within range of a counterstrike.
-Some of the robot’s limbs would need to be able to grasp objects. This would let it grab weapons
that humans were using to extend their reach, like baseball bats and spears, and to yank them
away with superior strength.
-A big insect or spider would look scary to humans, which would have an effect during fights.
-I agree the robot should be low to the ground and basically impossible to knock down owing to its
low center of gravity and all its double-jointed legs.
-If the robot could make loud noises, it would frighten and disorient human attackers.
-Covering it with many spikes and/or razor blades would also make it nearly impossible to grapple
with.
 Fahundo says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:00 pm ~new~
how about a spiky scorpion? low to the ground, two big heavy pincers it can use to restrain people
or possibly bash people with, that are also good at grabbing weapons out of people’s hands, and an
extra long tail with a big spike that it can use on someone trying to stay outside the pincers’ reach.
This thing can probably take people without using projectiles, but let’s give it a gun anyway.
 proyas says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:52 pm ~new~
how about a spiky scorpion? low to the ground, two big heavy pincers it can use to restrain people or
possibly bash people with, that are also good at grabbing weapons out of people’s hands, and an
extra long tail with a big spike that it can use on someone trying to stay outside the pincers’ reach.
This thing can probably take people without using projectiles, but let’s give it a gun anyway.
Hmm. The stinging/stabbing tail could serve as the “long-leg-length” appendage I mentioned. If it
had that and four legs, it would have too many limbs for a human to pin down.
The thing I don’t like about the scorpion body layout is that it has a front and a back, and it is
designed to fight enemies in front of it and unsuited to handle attacks from any other direction.
This creates an exploitable vulnerability.

I think a simplified, more radially symmetric scorpion would be a better design. The body would be
spheroidal, and the four legs would be 90 degrees from each other. The legs would have many
joints, and could act as arms as well as legs. A leg could do normal walking motions, but also kick,
slap, punch, and grab humans.
The long tail would be prehensile and able to sweep, whip, and thrash out in any vector with the
same ease, unlike a scorpion’s tail, which is designed to thrash forward. Attacking the robot from
behind wouldn’t be possible since it wouldn’t have a back or front.
The topside of the body would have something like two, short arms with funny hands on them for
grasping and shooting guns.
I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to carry over scorpion pincers to the robot design because that
would add two, big, heavy appendages that would do nothing 99.99% of the time. At the same
time, there’s great value in being able to physically pinch an enemy with lethal force.
The easiest way to give the robot that ability would be to program it use its limbs to do various
types of “locks” on human attackers. Watch this and note how the instructor locks his ankles
together to turn his legs into pincers that choke the student:
https://youtu.be/zat6toIsy2U?t=77
Imagine if the instructor’s legs were made of unyielding metal, and they had several ratchet points
I guess you could say, up and down the lengths of each of his legs that he could progressively
engage with one another to tighten the pincer.
If that’s not enough, then maybe the robot needs one analog to a scorpion claw (less weight than
two claws, and probably still sufficient), which would be akin to a mouth or beak. (Funny how
thinking about this technical problem brings us back to nature’s real solutions to the same
problems)
 oriscratch says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:51 pm ~new~
I think you’re underestimating the strength and durability of robotic parts. Any robot with decent
armor is basically invulnerable to punches and kicks, and any robot with decent motors will
instantly skewer a squishy human.
The main issues are stability and maneuverability. I’m a pretty big combat robotics fan, and every
combat robot with legs I’ve seen generally either falls over from instability or is so ineffective that
it’s instantly torn to bits. Big wheels + an extra stick leg for getting over obstacles or self-righting
seems like the way to go. Bonus points if you put a knife on the end of the stick leg to flail around
like a psycho when not in use.
Also, a lot of people seem to be making the mistake of designing really complicated designs that
sound cool but aren’t very efficient in reality. This happened a lot in the early days of combat
robotics—people would come with super elaborate robots with arms and blades and flails and
flamethrowers, and they would all get steamrolled by “hunk of sloped metal on wheels that pushes
you into walls” or “spinny piece of metal on wheels“. I suspect the same principle of simplicity
being better applies to designing robots intended to fight humans as well.

26. albatross11 says:

June 17, 2020 at 9:41 am ~new~
One thing that’s really striking about a lot of the debate over cancelling academics for talking to
the wrong people, expressing the wrong ideas, working on the wrong topics, or coming to the
wrong conclusions is that the standards are so different when it comes to mainstream figures, and
to politics.
Joe Biden was VP in an administration that covered up war crimes (“Look forward, not backward”),
assassinated US citizens without any kind of oversight besides the boss signing off on the
assassinations, bombed Libya in defiance of the War Powers Act (leaving a godawful mess behind),
and supported the Saudis in their horrific (and still ongoing) campaign in Yemen. Nobody thinks
anyone should be cancelled for having Joe Biden on their podcast.

Discussing ideas with people whose ideas you speculate could somehow, through some chain of
events, lead to piles of skulls, leads to cancellation. Discussing ideas with people whose past
actions have actually left piles of skulls behind, on the other hand, seems to be perfectly fine.
Similarly, discussing ideas with someone who is overtly Marxist seems not to lead to cancelation,
even though Marxism holds the all-time championship in piles of skulls left behind for any
intellectual movement.
I infer from these things that the plies-of-skulls justification for cancelling people is an excuse,
rather than a principle.

o Well... says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:02 am ~new~
Joe Biden is directly responsible for our government’s use of civil asset forfeiture which is a major
pillar of the war on drugs, and you can draw a pretty clear line from the war on drugs to the
problems between cops and (many) black people. If you bring this up with most Biden supporters I
suspect you will simply hear “Well at least he’s not Trump.”
o qwints says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:48 am ~new~
Ironically, this exact whataboutism was used by the Stalinists.

 Viliam says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:53 pm ~new~
How? Stalinists couldn’t have pointed at anyone with higher number of skulls.
Oh, they probably just lied.
o salvorhardin says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:50 am ~new~
A further irony is that the sort of activist who supports cancel mobs is the most likely sort of person
to say (correctly!) that a person’s intentions aren’t sufficient to judge the morality of their action:
you also have to look at the actual effect of their action on others and “I didn’t mean to hurt
anyone” isn’t a good enough excuse if you should have taken more care not to do harm. But the
canonical action this is applied to is always saying something that hurts someone’s feelings, never
leaving a pile of skulls.

o Conrad Honcho says:

June 17, 2020 at 10:57 am ~new~
I miss DrBeat. This is when he would come in to say that it’s all about instantiations of popularity.
Also, All Is Lost.

o Dan L says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:34 pm ~new~

One thing that’s really striking about a lot of the debate over cancelling academics for talking to the
wrong people, expressing the wrong ideas, working on the wrong topics, or coming to the wrong
conclusions is that the standards are so different when it comes to mainstream figures, and to
politics.
There is a critical dimension missing here, where people will automatically weight against what an
acceptable level of skulls is in a given situation. A merely-competent wartime leader will certainly
make decisions leading to formidable piles that could have been prevented by true excellence,
whereas knifing Cindy at the barbecue will ensure you’re not invited back even though she’ll
probably survive.
The guilt-by-association dynamic is a little different, but still factors in baselines: an interviewer
with a reputation for diverse guests is different than an interviewer who studiously appeals to a
specific audience with one exception. An academic who gives one interview a year’s appearance is
more notable than one that gives dozens. A browser history with hits to some truly wild shit is less
worrisome than one with 90% of its log going to Stormfront. And so on – attacks can still be made
and even find traction with others who lack the context for a baseline, but it’s harder.
I infer from these things that the plies-of-skulls justification for cancelling people is an excuse, rather
than a principle.
Inferring that people are using that principle as a pretext is strictly harder than passing an ITT.
Cynicism is easier, but far less useful.

o keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:31 pm ~new~
I think the relevant standard here is some sort of ratio. As in, how notable is this person for bad
things, vs how notable for other things. Stefan Molyneux isn’t really notable for anything other than
being an alt-right youtuber, while Biden is notable for many different political actions over a period
that went from him being the youngest Senator in history to him becoming the oldest presidential
nominee in history.
And I think this makes intuitive sense of many other things. Reagan’s choice to use Philadelphia,
MS as the site of his first rally as nominee chose a town that had zero notability other than for the
KKK murder of civil rights activists. Tulsa is a far more notable town, so the fact that its most
recent pop-culture notability is for a race riot is not quite as awful. While Washington, DC and New
York have likely been the site of even worse actions than either of those towns, there’s enough
other notability of these places that no one would complain about a rally there.
 sharper13 says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:59 pm ~new~
This whole Philadelphia, MS things appears to be a convenient myth.
Reagan’s first public speech as the GOP nominee was in New Jersey, near the Statue of Liberty.
The later speech near (not in) Philadelphia, MS, was at the Neshoba County Fair, 7 miles away
from the town. As the article notes, “The Neshoba Fair is large and popular, which probably
explains why Democratic Senator John Glenn campaigned there in 1983, when seeking the
presidential nomination, and why Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis spoke there
during the 1988 general election campaign, shortly after being nominated by the Democratic
Convention.”
You could say truthfully that Carter kicked off his campaign that year in the town where the
national headquarters of the KKK was, but that also doesn’t mean that’s why he spoke there.
Without someone who was actually involved in the decision to speak there, without something
explicitly tied to it in the speech, there’s no reason to believe either speech had anything to do with
events in Philadelphia, MS, nor the HQ of the KKK.
The candidates were fighting for voters in the areas where they could tilt the election, so the
campaigned (among other places) in parts of the south. That’s it.
The rest of the accusation you cited is a myth made up by someone who wasn’t involved and just
happens to be opposed to Reagan.

o birdboy2000 says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:37 pm ~new~
That’s what I find so loathsome about it. It’s useless against the powerful, it can’t stop actual
material harm, but it’s great for i.e. terrorizing minimum wage workers into silence. For a “left-
wing” tactic it sure looks ineffectual against the bosses!


June 17, 2020 at 4:50 pm ~new~
That’s what I find so loathsome about it. It’s useless against the powerful, it can’t stop actual
material harm, but it’s great for i.e. terrorizing minimum wage workers into silence. For a “left-
wing” tactic it sure looks ineffectual against the bosses!
“+1” seems way too weak here.
27. rocoulm says:

June 17, 2020 at 9:41 am ~new~
(Try to keep this non-CW if possible)
There’s been lots of discussion on chokehold bans lately, and speculation on whether or not it
would actually lead to less police violence. But the debates I’ve seen usually revolve around
enforceability and department accountability in general more than anything else.
One angle I’ve not seen covered, though, is whether it even encourages deescalation of dangerous
situations. It doesn’t seem obvious to me that an officer placed in a situation where a chokehold
would be useful (but realizes he’s not allowed to use it) would instead use less force, rather than
escalating further (e.g., drawing a gun instead). Does anyone have data either way on this?
o AKL says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:01 am ~new~
There is an ideas piece in the Atlantic in which David Brooks cites several examples of department
level policy shifts that were followed by a reduction in violent encounters involving police. Not sure
that any address choke holds per se, but it seems obvious that for most departments there is tons
of low hanging fruit when it comes to policy changes that can reduce violence. Whether tradeoffs
exist or whether they’re significant enough to avoid these types of policy changes, I guess YMMV
but the answer seems obvious to me.

o Well... says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:04 am ~new~
Are police unions the reason we so rarely hear from actual cops about this? Or am I just not in the
right bubbles? I’d be interested to hear what cops are saying about this whole situation, if anyone
can refer me to (e.g.) some cop Youtubers or something. Youtube used to recommend me a few
cop Youtuber channels but hasn’t in a while.

June 17, 2020 at 11:51 am ~new~
I’m not sure how you’d even get good data on that. But the general concern seems quite valid.
Note that chokeholds are one of the few techniques that would allow e.g. a 50th-percentile woman
with professional training to reliably restrain a motivated 90th-percentile male thug without
shooting bullets into them. That’s the sort of thing chokeholds were invented for, they work fairly
well in that application, and they very rarely kill anyone. The alternatives, like tasing them and
keeping the current on long enough that they are lying flaccid while you handcuff them, are also
regarded as highly brutal, prone to abuse by those so inclined, look really bad on video, and
occasionally kill people.
Since attempting and failing to restrain a 90th-percentile male thug can create an immediately life-
threatening situation for a 50th-percentile female cop (by any name), the possibility of a net
increase in dead bodies seems very real. OTOH, maybe the thug in that scenario looks sufficiently
unsympathetic on video that we don’t much care. So long as the thug is the one who winds up
dead.
 Aftagley says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:29 pm ~new~
that would allow e.g. a 50th-percentile woman with professional training to reliably restrain a
motivated 90th-percentile male thug without shooting bullets into them
I don’t know if this argument holds much water. Once a carotid hold is established – maybe the
50t-%ile woman could subdue the thug… If the thug in question doesn’t have much experience or
wherewithal or is just being disruptive rather than actively resisting, then yes – it could probably
subdue them.
But your average 50th percentile woman would basically never be able to get a choke-hold
established without exposing herself to a unacceptable level of risk.

 rocoulm says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:43 pm ~new~
…e.g. a 50th-percentile woman with professional training…
To be fair, I think he means 50th percentile raw strength (or something), but much higher than
average skill, so not really your average 50th percentile woman. That said, I, too, am skeptical, but
it’s also mostly beside the point for the rest of the discussion.

June 17, 2020 at 1:18 pm ~new~
Correct. If we want physically average women (or small men) to be able to serve as police officers,
we need a way to leverage superior training against superior strength. Fortunately, most thugs are
“trained” in a style of fighting designed to win monkey-brain ritual staus combat, not efficiently
defeat adversaries combat. Unfortunately, the relatively fine line between the two does not have
room for e.g. the Vulcan Nerve Pinch. Things like carotid holds may be the best we’ve got.
Hide ↑
 anon-e-moose says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:20 pm ~new~
Yes, Aftagley is correct. A 50% woman has absolutely no chance of getting into a mount to
establish the choke in the first place. None. If she’s trained some MMA? None. Even a 90% woman.
the strength delta is too great, and that position doesn’t suit smaller stature people.
I find it very difficult, as someone who has been the choker and chokee(?), to see where a carotid
hold fits into policing.
To touch on your above post, cops are generally inexperienced in actual hand to hand combat
unless they have a particular interest outside of work. To my understanding it’s taught, but not
trained in the vast majority of cases, much like their shooting skills.
If you’re in a one-on-one physical confrontation with someone as a cop, you’re already in a very,
very bad place and you need to get help or run. You leverage your superior numbers and state-
enforced ability to commit violence. If you want to learn to street fight, go talk to bouncers in a
country western bar.

June 17, 2020 at 1:20 pm ~new~
I have a technical question about the chokeholds being discussed.
Chokes in judo are designed to cut off blood to the brain, causing the opponent, if he doesn’t
surrender, to pass out, not to cut off air.
Which are the chokes used by the police doing?

June 17, 2020 at 1:34 pm ~new~
“chokes” in this context is an all encompassing term. Most use-of-force guidelines don’t
differentiate from air v blood except to say that they’re only appropriate in deadly force. Some UoF
practitioners specify that blood is less severe than air, but I don’t believe this is an actual policy
anywhere for liability reasons.

 noyann says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:55 pm ~new~
At least they include positional asphyxia, as in Floyd’s case.

28. Scoop says:

June 17, 2020 at 9:40 am ~new~
Question for lawyers:
Is there anything that resembles a reverse class action lawsuit?
A class action, typically, is where one (or a small number) of actors does a small amount of
damage to a large number of people. It wouldn’t be worth it for any one individual to sue, but the
total damage is great, so it makes sense for them to sue collectively.
How about when a large number of people each do a small amount of damage to one person?
Say a bunch of people on Twitter say someone is a child molester without any evidence. No one of
those accusations matters much, but collectively, they can do a huge amount of damage. Is there
some way to sue them all collectively?

o Anonymous Bosch says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:46 am ~new~
There’s no special vehicle for that, you just list a bunch of defendants. You’re essentially describing
how entertainment companies pursue copyright infringement claims: they name several thousand
John Does identified by their bittorrent IP address and try to extract settlements.
The reason class actions require special vehicles is because the plaintiff initiates the lawsuit, and so
they need a system where attorneys can represent a wide swathe of plaintiffs without having to
individually sign them up prior to the complaint.

 cassandrus says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:39 am ~new~
This is actually not true. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—the rule governing class
actions in federal court—is symmetric between plaintiffs and defendants: “One or more members of
a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members . . .”
The reason you almost never see defense-side class actions in practice is that the economics rarely
make sense. Class actions are helpful when the costs of prosecuting each individual case are
prohibitive, and you need to aggregate to amortize the costs across the class. But with a
defendant-class, there are still going to be a ton of defendant-by-defendant costs that cannot get
amortized, such as the cost of collecting even a successful judgment. And if the amount at issue is
enough to justify those costs, then the case is almost certainly big enough to justify suing each
defendant individually and avoiding the procedural hassle of a class action.


June 17, 2020 at 10:55 am ~new~
TIL. (That’s what I get for letting the non-patent parts of my education wither away.)
 cassandrus says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:06 am ~new~
Hah, that’s how I feel whenever patent issues come up!

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 11:25 am ~new~
It seems to me though that in this day and age it should be possible to prosecute a large group of
people for individually small but collectively large damage, and attempt to make collections.
I’m completely spitballing here, but this seems like a possible, and useful, and pro-social business
model. A person gets fired from their job because of a twitter mob. Assume the thing was..some
value of “unfair” or “wrongful.” They can sue the class of twitter users who harassed them and
their employer into firing them, for either “wrongful termination” or just harassment. It’s pretty
easy to scrape through all the twitter users who @’ed their employer and identify the ones who use
their real names, or perhaps they could work like the record companies and sue the twitter handles
and then subpoena twitter for the real identities. A lawyer could specialize in this type of “anti-mob
law.”
If they can get a judgement for $1M in damages, each of the 10,000 twitter users who harassed
them is ordered to payout $100. Maybe you can collect, maybe you can’t, I don’t know. But that
seems like a pretty pro-social result. There’s now a cost to joining a twitter mob. Don’t join unless
you’ve done your research and you know you have your facts straight and you’re willing to eat the
lawsuit if you’re wrong. Also, if you can sue and get a judgement in your favor, that’s evidence the
damage to your reputation unwarranted, and you are now vindicated. Give you some closure.
Does this sound at all reasonable to anyone?

June 17, 2020 at 12:01 pm ~new~
It sounds reasonable to me. It would take a lot of work on the part of the judge (most likely) or the
jury to parse responsibility (especially for the unfortunate tweeters who re-tweet a doxxing tweet
to say how wrong the doxxing is).
Even plaintiff class action lawsuits separate the plaintiffs into varying degrees. This might be
something the plaintiffs would be required to pay for in a defendant class action.
Also there’d need to be something to account for people who don’t respond to the suit, or people
who don’t have the time to prove their innocence. Some punishment for dragging too wide a net.
Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 12:24 pm ~new~
It seems to me though that in this day and age it should be possible to prosecute a large group of
people for individually small but collectively large damage, and attempt to make collections.
I think it would be impractically difficult to satisfy any meaningful requirement for due process
when each member of that group says “I see your point and I agree in the general case, but you
made a mistake because I specifically don’t belong in that group”.
And no, “It’s obvious, just look at their tweets, I know it when I see it” isn’t due process. Which I’m
pretty sure you’ll wind up agreeing with when e.g. someone with a high oppression score gets
beaten up, points to a small group of bigots who posted explicit, specific, and immediate calls to
violence, and a blue-tribe bureaucrat is tasked by the court with going through a massive twitter
thread and deciding which hate-speaking bigots have to pay $1000 with no appeal. You may be
able to imagine that process being implemented fairly, but do you really expect that it will be?
Hide ↑
 AG says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:54 pm ~new~
There’s also the case where someone re-tweets to disagree, but nonetheless spreads the word by
doing so, and maybe more people join the mob because someone in the outgroup tweeted
disagreement.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 11:40 am ~new~
The Bendectin case is a little like that. A number of firms had produced an unpatented drug. It
turned out that the drug sometimes produced negative effects on the daughters of women who
took it when pregnant, effects that only appeared at puberty.
By that time there were no records to show which company had produced the dose which woman
took. No company had produced anything close to a majority of all doses. Under conventional tort
law that meant that, since no company had a greater than fifty percent chance of being responsible
for any particular injury, no company was liable. The court instead assigned liability in proportion
to what fraction of doses each company had produced.

 samboy says:
June 18, 2020 at 2:43 am ~new~
The evidence towards this “Bendicin case” is that there was no proven link between Bendicin use
and birth defects. Indeed, the litigators tried to introduce junk science to support their lawsuit,
which was shut down all the way up to the Supreme Court.
o keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:32 pm ~new~
This is exactly the concept of a microaggression as well.

29. Joseph Greenwood says:

June 17, 2020 at 9:31 am ~new~
I purchased Humble Bundle’s “Fight for Racial Justice” bundle today, and now I have an extra
Steam activation code for the game “A New Beginning – Final Cut”.
Taking inspiration from Eric T: does anyone want this game? If you think you will play it, I am
happy to give it to you for free.

30. Bobobob says:

June 17, 2020 at 9:25 am ~new~
On a totally non-CW note, I am really, really happy that the English Premier League is playing out
the rest of its season, starting today. I miss watching live sports.
31. Nicholas Weininger says:

June 17, 2020 at 9:20 am ~new~
I currently take Elysium’s Basis supplement. They are now advertising an anti-cognitive-decline
thing called “Matter” which seems, at first glance, really overpriced for what it contains
(anthocyanins I probably get plenty of in my diet, a “patented” B vitamin complex, and some
omega 3s which are supposedly more bioavailable than those in fish oil pills). Is there any real
reason to spend $40/mo on this? Their scholarship on NAD+ precursors looked sound enough as
these things go, but I’m worried they’re coasting on that reputation to do something much less
worthwhile.
o Doctor Mist says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:01 pm ~new~
I keep trying to figure out if even Basis makes sense. I’ve been doing it for a couple of years, but
you can get nicotinamide riboside and pterostilbene separately for a lot less, and I’m not even sure
whether I need the pterostilbene: I eat a lot of blueberries. It’s kind of only the fact that I would
have to call them up to discontinue it (see Problems with Paywalls) that makes me continue.
32. Alex M says:

June 17, 2020 at 8:44 am ~new~
I signed the petition. Thank you so much for distributing it, Scott! I like to support my fellow truth
seekers in any way I can. It’s important to stand together and make it clear that an attack on ONE
of us is an attack on ALL of us. “Where we go one, we go all” as a conspiracy theorist once told me.
Since the culture-war rules appear to have been relaxed for this thread, I also have a hypothetical
question. Perhaps it is related to current events, or perhaps not. I’ll let people interpret it any way
they want.
Suppose there are two groups of people. Group one is angry, hysterical, violent, and stupid. They
cannot tolerate the existence of any group that disagrees with their (poorly informed) opinions.
When they encounter such people, they immediately attempt to form a lynch mob and destroy that
person’s reputation, career, and social prospects.
Group two is intelligent, thoughtful, and wise. They can tolerate the opinions of people whom they
disagree with, and try to see things from a nuanced point of view. If they were a bit more cruel,
they could easily use their superior intelligence to eradicate group one. However, because they are
pacifists, they let themselves get attacked repeatedly by group one without retaliating. In fact,
many people in group two refuse to even acknowledge that group one is at war with them, even
while their own membership is decimated by angry mobs led by narcissistic status-seekers in group
one.
So here is my hypothetical question. How long before natural selection eliminates all the pacifists in
group two and the only members of group two left are more vindictive personality types who are
willing to engage in coordinated retaliation against members of group one?
Just asking for a friend.

o zero says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:54 am ~new~
Historically, group one eventually turns on itself, and the people in group two find they are not as
tolerant as they thought when group three takes over.


June 17, 2020 at 9:11 am ~new~
Any group that imagines they are smarter than the other group — especially so much smarter that
only their own benevolence is saving the other group from destruction — is in for a big surprise.
June 17, 2020 at 9:24 am ~new~
Your model is bad:
1. “Natural Selection” assumes both group membership and pacifism (within group 2) to be
inheritable traits. Given that the biggest predictor of membership in group 1 is “recent university
grad”, that seems unlikely.
2. Given 1, gradual culling of pacifists from group 2 doesn’t make group 2 more able to retaliate.
The proportion changes but the total number of “willing to retaliate in a coordinated fashion”
people in group 2 stays the same.
3. The specifics of the mechanism you abstractly name “retaliation” matters a ton. If group 1
outnumbers group 2, copying strategies is likely ineffective. Doing something different may be
entirely compatible with pacifism. For example, becoming financially independent shields you
substantially from the mob. Publishing anonymously/pseudonymously has a similar effect.

o Murphy says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:31 am ~new~
Ah, I see, the wise group is “Us” and the hysterial group is “them”!
Clearly the Rattlers need to be wiped out for the sake of us Eagles!
o L (Zero) says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:21 am ~new~
Here is my perspective as someone who got banned from this blog for several months primarily for
not understanding a Star Wars reference. (Scott, if you actually read this, I guess I do not care if
you likewise sincerely were that skeptical that any sincere person could misunderstand a Star Wars
reference. I really hope I am not making things weird and about to get banned again.) It seems to
me more like the defining feature of Alex M’s posited group landscape (again, not something SA
ever said) would be that the vindictive members of group two are particularly eager to dismiss
others as hysterical, regardless of a common interest in civil discussion.

o AG says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:57 pm ~new~
This assumes that both groups have equal access to resources.
It assumes that group one’s actions are actually significantly successful, rather than temporary.
It fiats decimation.
It adds things to the pacifist description that don’t match empirical cases.
o Viliam says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:18 pm ~new~
To play Devil’s Advocate, if group one wants to destroy group two, and group two prefers the
feeling of moral superiority their pacifism provides them… then destroying group two is a win/win
solution.
More realistically though, if you see a group that refuses to defend itself in a situation where it
could, there is probably some intra-group mechanism that prevents it. Some mechanism where
people who try to defend the group would get punished by those who don’t. Insisting that pacifism
is the only way to go could be such mechanism.
As a thought experiment, imagine that some SSC reader happens to be in a situation where they
can pull some strings and get fired everyone who signed the petition against Prof. Hsu. Imagine
that they do, and that it creates a chilling effect against people who would want to start Twitter
witchhunts in the future. Now imagine they later write a comment of SSC describing exactly what
they did. How many people would tell them: “I don’t like SJWs, but what you did is horrible and
you should be ashamed”?
I am not saying that pacifism is always a bad strategy. Groups that are too trigger-happy often
turn against their own people. But if you go so far that you systematically punish everyone who
tries to defend you, to such degree that there is no unpunishable defense left… then you shouldn’t
be surprised by the predictable outcome. If that’s what you value (e.g. if you believe that your
pacifism will literally get you a place in heaven), okay then, you got what you wanted. But if you
would actually prefer to win, and yet you participate in dysfunctional mechanisms that punish
everyone who wants to protect you… then you are Moloch’s breakfast.
 nkurz says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:55 pm ~new~
> How many people would tell them: “I don’t like SJWs, but what you did is horrible and you
should be ashamed”?
Well, since we’re usually considerate here about piling on to people with whom we disagree,
probably only two or three at most.
But if you to ask how many would publicly agree that what he did was horrible, I’d guess at least
80%. Probably some of these are only saying that because it makes them look more consistent,
but I’d still guess that well over half of the people who previously said publicly said they disagree
with SJW tactics would genuinely believe that he should be ashamed, and that the problem with
the tactics doesn’t go away just because one happens to like the immediate the results.
What’s your guess? Am I falsely believing that the percentage would be high because I disagree
with what I see as SJW tactics? Is the question distinct from “do the ends justify the means”?
Maybe this is a scissors statement?

 Christophe Biocca says:

June 17, 2020 at 4:56 pm ~new~
As a thought experiment, imagine that some SSC reader happens to be in a situation where they can
pull some strings and get fired everyone who signed the petition against Prof. Hsu.
This treats twits as having but-for control over who gets fired. No employment contract I know of
comes with a “Twitter gets a veto over your continued employment” clause.
Contrast with “firing the manager who’s using twitter trends to make staffing decisions” which is
more than just defensible, it’s (I’d argue) the right call to make.
33. TheContinentalOp says:

June 17, 2020 at 8:28 am ~new~
Some US States (including IL, NJ & PA) allow people to place themselves on gov’t compiled casino
exclusion lists. Once you’re on this list you are not permitted to enter a casino. If you gamble and
win (maybe the million dollar slot jackpot), you are not permitted to collect. If the casino
authorities discover you, they are obligated to remove you from the premises.
Additionally the casino can be fined for allowing people on the exclusion list to gamble. One case in
PA involved issuing a loyalty rewards card to a player onsite. (That’s pretty sloppy on the casino’s
part, IMO). But they’ve also been fined just for allowing excluded people gambling. Since ID isn’t
required (unless you look underage) how are the casinos supposed to enforce this? Is facial
recognition that good that they can spot these people? Or do their security SUV’s armed with
ALPRs tied into the DMV database scour the parking lots? On the other hand, casinos do such
damage, maybe I shouldn’t worry about them having to pay the occasional fine that they have no
real practical way of avoiding.
Fun fact: In PA you can put yourself on the exclusion list for 1 year, 5 years, or for life. If you
choose lifetime, you can’t change your mind and are barred from the casinos forever.
o Randy M says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:36 am ~new~
Galaxy-brain take: putting yourself on the list is a good way to make gambling that much more
exciting.
o Aftagley says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:50 am ~new~
I actually got to go “backstage” at a casino a while back and get a look at their entire security
apparatus (long story) it was amazingly eye-opening.
First off:
Since ID isn’t required (unless you look underage) how are the casinos supposed to enforce this?
So, the Casino I was at scanned 100% of all guests IDs on entry. I’d imagine that all casinos who
are subject to this law would follow suit pretty quickly.

Is facial recognition that good that they can spot these people?
Depends. Casino’s probably have some of the best facial recognition software in the game. If this
person has ever been identified as being on the exclusion list, yeah, they’ll catch you. If the casino
has no clue what you look like, you’re probably good up until the first point someone checks your
ID.
Or do their security SUV’s armed with ALPRs tied into the DMV database scour the parking lots?
SUV’s? Why would they do that. They’ve got the readers stuck to every lightpole and entrance to
the casino’s parking lot. If you make it to your spot without your plate being read, someone has
critically messed up.

 Randy M says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:56 am ~new~
If you make it to your spot without your plate being read, someone has critically messed up.
Interesting. Is this only used for keeping a few problems out, or do they attempt to get more data
on every entrant? Do they realize I’m only there for the cheap buffet and rodeo before I’ve locked
my doors and determined how to tailor service accordingly?
And if not, how long until Google’s casino opens up with these features?
 Aftagley says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:09 am ~new~
Is this only used for keeping a few problems out, or do they attempt to get more data on every
entrant?
Mostly column A. I wasn’t at on in Vegas, so maybe it’s different elsewhere, but the Casino I went
to wasn’t really worried about maximizing profit from each individual guest. They don’t care if
you’re just their for the (super expensive) buffet or floorshow, you’re still making them a bunch of
money.
Just out of curiosity, are you familiar with how prevalent ALPRs are just in your daily life? If you
live in an urban/suburban environment, it’s pretty much standard at this point that cops will be
able to trace your car basically everywhere you go. Some states even sell this data out to private
companies that let basically anyone willing to shell out a couple dozen $k see where you’ve been
and when.
 Randy M says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:13 am ~new~
Just out of curiosity, are you familiar with how prevalent ALPRs are just in your daily life? Some
states even sell this data out to private companies that let basically anyone willing to shell out a
couple dozen $k see where you’ve been and when.
No, but I wish I knew who was doing, I’d gladly sell that info for single k $. (I know, it’s aggregate)
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 10:03 am ~new~
Don’t assume that all casinos are created equal. There are massive differences between states due
to regulatory regimes, between tribal and non-tribal casinos, between casinos and racinos in the
same state, and between the AAA Destination venues like Vegas, Atlantic City, Reno, etc and
smaller midwestern and southern cainsos.

June 17, 2020 at 8:53 am ~new~

Since ID isn’t required (unless you look underage) how are the casinos supposed to enforce this?
The casinos aren’t legally required to ask for ID from old-looking people != the casinos are legally
enjoined from asking for ID.
So in practice once the cost of the fines got larger than the friction-induced loss of attendance due
to ID-checking everyone at the entrance, they’d switch to that.

 sharper13 says:
June 18, 2020 at 12:07 am ~new~
IDs are also essentially always required if you win any substantial amount of money.
Have to do the IRS paperwork, after all.
So if you won, you’d then lose anyway.

o Lambert says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:25 am ~new~
Casinos already have sophisticated facial scanning so that card counters can’t get back in.
They share data so that you can’t get kicked out of each individual casino.
Shouldn’t be too hard to request to be put on the list.

 baconbits9 says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:30 am ~new~
You would have to walk in and get your face scanned to have this work.
o Thomas Jorgensen says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:27 am ~new~

The main thing the list does is ban the people on it from collecting. You have to have a very, very
bad case of gambling addiction to keep going to casinos after that, and the people so afflicted are
going to be well known enough to the casinos that asking them to just not let you on the premises
is not unreasonable – that is, the actual list the casinos have to care about is a lot shorter than it
appears.
June 17, 2020 at 10:33 am ~new~
This is true for casinos with lots of retail traffic (people in the local area making regular trips on
evenings/weekends), less so for casinos with destination traffic (people all over the country/world
flying in to visit your casino for a vacation). The latter case is where you start needing tools like
facial recognition, etc.
Security and other departments know the regulars, know when someone who WAS a regular puts
themselves on an exclusion list (especially since you often have to present yourself at the casino to
exclude yourself and then be taken in the back to talk to the representative of the lottery or
gaming commission who’s always on-property), and pass the word.

June 17, 2020 at 10:30 am ~new~
It’s important to remember that in the US Gambling is regulated at the state level, so the
discussion changes depending on which state. Even then, you can have multiple regulatory regimes
in one state, such as here in Ohio where Casinos (Slot Machines + Table Games) are regulated by
the Ohio Casino Commission (OCC) and Racinos (Video Lottery Terminals which are modern
electronic slot machines but with slightly different RNG/software + Horse Racing and simulcast
betting, No Table Games allowed) are regulated by the Ohio Lottery Commission (OLC). Then
factor in that you have a lot of casinos operating on reservations and regulated by the local tribal
government (sometimes operated by a national company for the benefit of the Tribal Council,
sometimes entirely locally owned and operated).
Having worked in the Casino industry for about 8 years now in multiple jurisdictions, I can assure
you that it is extremely heterogeneous. Some states and some properties, all guests will be
stopped as they enter the property and have their ID scanned digitally and stored (and in Missouri,
the state troopers seconded to the Missouri Gaming Commission to enforce gaming regulations
often casually pull up this database on slow days, looking for BOLOs and outstanding warrants),
but this system is designed to catch guests under 21 and fake IDs, and doesn’t communicate with
the DAP list (the Disassociated Persons list). It used to be the case in Missouri that you HAD to
register and get a loyalty card to play, which meant presenting ID at the Player’s Club/Fan
Club/Loyalty Club desk, which meant that you could be checked against the DAP list at that time to
catch anyone who was supposed to be excluded. That law was changed a few years back, and the
effect of relaxing that restriction DID create a situation where it’s now harder for casinos in
Missouri to catch DAPs before they play IF they don’t use a card.
By contrast, in an Ohio Racino regulated by OLC, guests are only ID-ed when getting a player’s
card, conducting certain financial transactions (including paying out a Jackpot), or if they appear to
be under 40 when entering. The reason guests are ID-ed when they win a Jackpot is that any
jackpot of $1,200 or more requires a W-2G and has to be reported as income. Hand pays below
$1,200 aren’t handled the same way. And as far as other financial transactions Casinos in the US
are bound by the Bank Secrecy Act and Title 31, so the short version is that the same sort of
activity that triggers reporting for a banking customer triggers reporting for a casino guest at a
cashier window ($10,000 of activity at once or in aggregate in a day, etc etc)
So in short, it depends on which casino you’re talking about, in which jurisdiction. Some scan IDs
at the door and check against the state exclusion list. Some DO have facial recognition software.
And any place where a guest has to present ID and interact with the loyalty card program there’s
going to be a built-in check for exclusion. For example, the casino creates empty accounts for all
excluded patrons in their guest database, flagged so that they show up with a bunch of pop-up
warnings, so that when the guest services clerk searches their name and DOB to create a new
account for the excluded guest who just turned over their ID, their list of matches for existing
accounts includes that person’s name in bright red with a flashing EXCLUDED DOE, JOHN 1/1/1970
EXCLUDED. As noted, this doesn’t necessarily stop someone from making a card for them anyway
if the clerk gives sufficiently few shits (which is stupid since that’s a good way to get your gaming
license revoked, get fired, and/or get -personally- fined in a lot of jurisdictions, but I can attest
from personal experience as both that clerk and supervisor of same that you can find people in that
job who are careless and sloppy, at least until they get fired).
34. Matt M says:

June 17, 2020 at 8:04 am ~new~
Would anyone like to make a Steelman argument in favor of why mainstream journalists
can/should/would publish news pieces (not op-eds or commentary) related to COVID trends and
the effectiveness of various policies that focus exclusively on one of the
cases/hospitalizations/deaths variables and completely fail to discuss any of the others.
It strikes me as almost criminally negligent to publish a “cases are rising” piece that makes no
mention whatsoever of what’s happening in hospitalizations or deaths. What legitimate reason is
there to do this? How does this better inform the public?
Any article I see that mentions trends in cases or hospitalizations or deaths, but does not refer to
the other things at all, I am treating as an opinion piece that is intended to advocate a policy
position, and not as a news piece that is intended to objectively inform. Is this unreasonable of
me?
o zero says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:08 am ~new~
If you’re trying to measure recent trends, hospitalizations and deaths are data that reflect case
numbers days before. Of course, the case numbers we have have their own set of issues.
 Matt M says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:34 am ~new~
Fair enough. But if you’re truly looking to inform, wouldn’t it be worth it to include a simple two-
line paragraph that says something like “Many skeptics are pointing to the fact that hospitalizations
and deaths are flat as a cause for optimism, however, all the experts agree that these are lagging
indicators and we would not expect to see them spike until approximately two weeks following a
spike in cases.”
What’s the Steelman for not saying that? For avoiding any mention of a possible skeptical position
whatsoever?
 albatross11 says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:39 am ~new~
Reporters are probably mostly not all that sophisticated users of these statistics. High quality
sources of information *do* make the distinction between positive tests, number of tests,
hospitalizations, and deaths, and clarify the lag time between them, but most mainstream news
sources aren’t high-quality sources of information about science or medicine.

 Matt M says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:49 am ~new~
Sorry, this sounds like more of an excuse than a Steelman.
I’m not a sophisticated user of any of these statistics, but I still understand that there are many
variables to consider, and considering only one and ignoring all others is a good way to guarantee
you’re not getting the full picture and that your understanding will end up severely lacking.
And it’s not laziness either, because these articles do have numbers and statistics in them. It’s not
as if the reporters can’t or won’t go get and think about and manipulate data.
Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 9:46 am ~new~
But if you’re truly looking to inform, wouldn’t it be worth it to include a simple two-line paragraph
that says something like “Many skeptics are pointing to the fact that hospitalizations and deaths are
flat as a cause for optimism, however, all the experts agree that these are lagging indicators and we
would not expect to see them spike until approximately two weeks following a spike in cases.”
I don’t see how this is that big of a problem. Either death rates start trending up again, which
justifies the concern, or they don’t, in which case it’ll show up in the data. Not pointing out other
factors has been a long running problem with reporting but what you are talking about here will fix
itself soon enough.
The bigger problem, I think, is that they’ll write these horror pieces about it going up in Texas,
Florida or wherever and not even bother to admit that it’s also going up in blue states like
California.
None of it really matters at this point though. Everyone has a side so the right has tuned out CNN
and the left will continue to lecture the right about being irresponsible. It doesn’t really matter
what specifically the media says about it now.

June 17, 2020 at 9:55 am ~new~
And the only problem with that is that reality does not give a flying fuck whether my tribe believes
in it or your tribe does. Even if the social truth where you live is that the virus is just a bad flu and
only kills old folks anyway, or the social truth is that racism is a pandemic too so nobody should
worry about spreading the virus during protests, the actual true truth is going to involve a lot of
folks dying of pneumonia. Quite possibly, the social truth will be that anyone who mentions that all
the people dying now are the consequence of the previous social truth is a terrible person who
should be cancelled or shunned or silenced somehow.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 8:14 am ~new~
There isn’t one. Rounds-to-all professional reporting on everything coronavirus-related has been
epidemiologically and/or statistically illiterate gibberish.

o MilesM says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:28 am ~new~
I would be genuinely interested in seeing such an argument.
The most charitable interpretation I can come up with for the majority of COVID reporting is that
it’s being done for the clicks by people who are too ignorant to realize how damaging it is.
But I think the failure to always address cases/hospitalizations/deaths (and % of people testing
positive) isn’t even the worst of it.
It’s reports that blatantly ignore incubation time to try to blame something “bad” which happened
2 or 3 days prior for a spike in cases (which often turns out to be a data artifact). Closely followed
by ones which find “trends” by looking at the entire country, rather than breaking things down
geographically.
o Edward Scizorhands says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:34 am ~new~
Nate Silver has been complaining about this and will probably keep at it forever.
The steelman is that journalism has been neutron-bombed by Craigslist and they cannot afford
decent reporting.
o Bobobob says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:35 am ~new~
Clicks, clicks, clicks, clicks, clicks. I can’t even stress the word enough. Clicks.
Most online news outlets are in seriously bad shape, and need quality clicks (NOT the same as
“clicks on quality content”) to sell ads against.
I have been part of this ecosystem, and I can summarize it all in one word. Clicks.
 Matt M says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:44 am ~new~
I’m not complaining about the headlines. Those are what drive the clicks.
I’m complaining about the fact that even after you click, you get eight paragraphs, none of which
bother to include the very basic and useful information that might make someone even a little bit
more informed on the topic the headline is ostensibly about.
I’ve long given up on headlines. I concede that because of how the Internet is, every headline is
going to be indistinguishable from “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!”

 Bobobob says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:01 am ~new~
I’m convinced that online articles are written in such a way as to minimize bouncebacks, which get
you dinged by Google. So it’s to the news outlet’s advantage to make you hunt through those eight
paragraphs for nuggets of information, which keeps you on the site for the requisite 15 or 30
seconds and qualifies the click.

 Nick says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:13 am ~new~
So that’s what is driving that? I’ve wondered for a long time now. Thanks.
Hide ↑
 AG says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:04 pm ~new~
Huh, does that mean that people could penalize a site by coordinating bounceback campaigns?
Hide ↑
o Aftagley says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:36 am ~new~

It strikes me as almost criminally negligent to publish a “cases are rising” piece that makes no
mention whatsoever of what’s happening in hospitalizations or deaths.
My prior is that some percentage of cases of COVID will result in hospitalization and/or death. So if
you say to me, “cases are rising by X%” I just mentally assume that there’s an attendant rise in
hospitalizations and deaths.

June 17, 2020 at 8:45 am ~new~
There’s a lagged increase in hospital admissions, and later in deaths. You get exposed today,
become contagious in a couple days, start having symptoms in three or four days, feel like you’ve
got a bad case of the flu for a week or so, then start having trouble breathing and go to the
hospital ten days from now. They put you on oxygen for a couple days along with whatever the
current protocol is for treating C19 patients, and as you worsen maybe they eventually put you on
a ventilator. You finally die of pneumonia 20 days later.
Depending on how available tests are, you may get a test when you start getting sick, or you may
not get one until you show up at the hospital. Over time, we’re probably getting (in my very
amateur view) a longer lag between positive test results and deaths, thanks to more widely
available testing and also due to faster turnaround time on tests.

 Matt M says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:52 am ~new~
How long do you suppose it took you to think and type up those two paragraphs?
Are you a professional scientist? Do you have years of experience as an epidemiologist?
How come you can do that but seemingly zero journalists can?
 Murphy says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:45 am ~new~
Some journalists can, but I think you’re overestimating both many of the journalists and most of
their readers.
Sadly….
the majority of readers are on a mental level where they’re sharing facebook status’s about how
it’s really 5g towers or that it’s unfair they can’t have a pool party because their horoscope says it’s
a good day for their health and they’re on immune-boosting homeopathic pills.
Hide ↑
 nkurz says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:50 am ~new~
> How come you can do that but seemingly zero journalists can?
I don’t disagree with your premise, but I’m not sure that I see any strong incentive for journalists
to behave differently than they do. Can you flip things around and make a good argument for why
it would benefit any individual reporters to write the pieces as you would like to see them? My fear
is that the reporters are behaving rationally, and if you want the reporting to change, you’ll have to
somehow change the incentive structure.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 9:59 am ~new~
I read a (paywalled) Wall Street Journal article on how the virus spreads that was pretty careful
and nuanced. And I’ve seen some reporting from Vox (notably from Kelsey) that seemed to be
trying to play fair with the data. And some other mainstream sources.
Most journalists and most media sources do badly with it, both for clickbait headline reasons and
just because they don’t understand the underlying science or statistics well enough to do a good
job.
Hide ↑
 Matt M says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:46 am ~new~
Does it matter whether or not that assumption is actually correct? Shouldn’t someone occasionally
check to see if it is?


June 17, 2020 at 8:54 am ~new~
I just asked my doctor friend and he says yes, significant percentages of COVID cases still result in
hospitalization and death. Glad I checked, would have to have dated priors on this score because I
failed to notice a cure.

 zero says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:56 am ~new~
If the increase in COVID cases is an artifact of increased testing, one would expect to see a higher
number of reported cases without an attendant increase in hospitalizations and deaths one or two
weeks later.
Hide ↑
 Aftagley says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:01 am ~new~
Dumb counterargument: I assume the sun is going to rise again tomorrow. I only want someone to
update that assumption if there’s a good chance my assumption is going to be proven incorrect.
Unless that’s happening, I don’t need or want every weather forecast to start with “don’t worry, the
sun is still going to rise tomorrow.”
More applicable counterargument: Kind of folding in what albatross11 says above: increased cases
are a more time sensitive indicator of the trend. If we make decisions off of infection rate, we can
respond within a week or so. If we wait for hospitalizations, we’re limited to waiting 20ish days and
if we wait for the trifecta, were a month or so behind. This might be another dumb analogy, but
imagine a news article from the world 7 days after the government instituted a mandatory door-
knob licking and in-face coughing policy. “Rates of infections increase following change, but
hospitalization and death rates unchanged.” You’d agree this would be ludicrous, correct?
 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:16 am ~new~
So if you say to me, “cases are rising by X%” I just mentally assume that there’s an attendant rise in
That’s exactly the problem! They aren’t reporting the number of cases, they are reporting the
number of new cases confirmed via positive tests. Which of course is highly dependent on how
many tests you perform, and on whom.
As a toy example, consider a state where the only way to get a test is to be hospitalized with
COVID symptoms. Then, a week later they roll out drive through tests where anyone who wants a
test can get one. A week after that they make testing mandatory for the entire population. You
would see a huge jump in confirmed cases each week, even if the total infected was exactly the
same.
Responsible journalism would at least consider things like “positive test rate” “case hospitalization
rate” etc. There are many variables and “confirmed cases” is only one. But 90% of the time they
don’t even bother to report rates as per capita because raw numbers are scarier.
 keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:37 pm ~new~
Most of the articles I see in the local media these days are now reporting the positivity rate as well
as the number of positive tests. (Probably because the county started reporting this recently, with
trends going back several months.)

 Scoop says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:20 am ~new~
My prior is that some percentage of cases of COVID will result in hospitalization and/or death. So if
you say to me, “cases are rising by X%” I just mentally assume that there’s an attendant rise in
This prior is may be correct, but it may not be correct, so it should be addressed in the news
stories.
How could this prior be wrong?
1. (As zero mentions) Diagnosed cases are going up, but actual new cases are not rising. We just
have way more testing capacity now, so we’re detecting cases we wouldn’t have detected a month
ago, cases that will never end up in the hospital and pose no risk of death.
2. We’re getting better at treating C19 (see the story I posted yesterday about a common steroid
reducing death rates by more than 20%) so more cases now will not result in nearly as many
deaths as they would have a month ago. (This obviously affects expected deaths but not
hospitalizations.)
3. Doctors are getting better at recognizing cases that will not require hospitalization, so they send
more people who test positive home rather than to the hospital (This obviously affects
hospitalizations but not deaths.)
4. The people who are getting the disease now are, on average, healthier than those who were
getting it a month ago because we’re doing a better job at insulating vulnerable people in nursing
homes but young, healthy people are going out more. The people who are catching it will thus be
far less likely to undergo hospitalization or death, so we shouldn’t worry about increasing cases as
much now as we should have a month ago.
I’m sure there are others.
Note: I’m not saying than any of these except two is necessarily true, but they’re all plausible and
should be dealt with in any quality publication that aims its stories at an educated audience.
o Scott Alexander says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:08 am ~new~

Seems okay to me. If some place has better medical care than some other place, they’ll have the
same number of infections but fewer deaths. If some place has better social distancing than
another place, they’ll have more infections and more deaths. It seems reasonable to care about
how good the social distancing is, and, separately, how good the medical care is.
 Matt M says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:24 am ~new~
I’ve been limiting my social media usage lately, so I’m not as entirely up to date in this stuff as I
used to be (because social media is pretty much the only place that skeptical arguments are still
allowed to exist).
My understanding is that the skeptic “explanation” for recent case surges is a mixture of
demographic changes in who is being infected (more young people, less old people) and improving
treatment methods (which would result in fewer hospitalizations and/or deaths per infection).
Demographic changes would almost certainly be good news. A world where the young and healthy
mostly return to normal while we actually do a good job of protecting the elderly and the
vulnerable would seemingly be pretty desirable. And this world would, in fact, show cases flat-to-
up with hospitalizations and deaths being flat-to-down. So “cases up” isn’t inherently bad so long
as the cases are mainly confined to people who either we need to be out there working, or who
personally want to be out there working (or doing other stuff to enhance their quality of life), and
who are at little risk of death.
Improving treatment is obviously good as well, but is reasonably unrelated to lockdowns such that
it’s not worth spending much time discussing. In any event, what I’m opposed to is not journalists
saying “Cases are up and that’s a concern that we should keep our eye on” (Alex Berenson, God-
Emperor of the skeptics, has said as much himself), but the fact that they don’t bother to say
“Whether or not this is truly a good or a bad thing won’t be certain until we can review the
hospitalization numbers ~1 week from now, or the death count ~2 weeks from now.”
o Well... says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:14 am ~new~
You already knew I was going to say this, but I think we need a steelman argument in favor of why
any journalists should publish anything.
I don’t mean why anybody should write about stuff going on in the world — people are curious,
enjoy gossip, and like to feel in-the-know, so that part makes sense — but why anybody should
write in a way that is meant to pass as authoritative on what is truly happening and what is
important to know about, when they have no legitimate claim to such authority.
And I didn’t mean to hijack the thread; I think answering my question might answer yours.
 Dan L says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:29 pm ~new~
why anybody should write in a way that is meant to pass as authoritative on what is truly
happening and what is important to know about, when they have no legitimate claim to such
authority
You use a loaded definition of “journalist” that pretty much requires assuming the conclusion.
Barring refinement, you can’t judge whether a person who professionally reports on events is a
“journalist” until you’ve already arrived at a value judgement.

 Well... says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:54 pm ~new~
Nothing in my statement is a value judgment. It’s a plainly worded statement you can test.
Imagine a short piece of writing, or a talking head on a screen, or a voice on the radio, telling you
about something going on in the world in a way that is not meant to sound authoritative about
what is truly happening or important to know about; or else imagine one that is meant to sound
authoritative on these things — because it actually is produced by someone with the authority to
tell you what is truly happening and important to know about.
Can you imagine an example of either of those that resembles any journalism you have witnessed?
I cannot. The former is indistinguishable from blogging, vlogging, podcasting, social media-posting,
etc. and the latter is impossible as far as I can figure, with a possible exception if you’re a child and
the content is produced by your parents. (If you think journalists do have the authority to tell you
what is truly going on and important to know about, I’d love to understand why you think that.)
Once you’ve determined that someone does not have the authority to tell you what is truly
happening and important to know about, but is attempting to give the impression that he does,
then you know how to evaluate whatever this person says about COVID-19 (or anything else).
o JayT says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:05 pm ~new~
I think the steelman is that most reporters are innumerate and don’t realize it, so they write
something that they believe is accurate and important without realizing that they are only telling
half the story or have the story backwards.

o Dan L says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:21 pm ~new~

Would anyone like to make a Steelman argument in favor of why mainstream journalists
can/should/would publish news pieces (not op-eds or commentary) related to COVID trends and
the effectiveness of various policies that focus exclusively on one of the cases/hospitalizations/deaths
variables and completely fail to discuss any of the others.
These are not even vaguely the same question. Who do you foresee enforcing content restriction
on speech?
o LesHapablap says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:37 pm ~new~
I know someone who lives in Seattle who is a very well educated, mathy, blue-tribe technical
person, and she thought the death rate if you catch COVID in Washington was 5% as of two weeks
ago.
So somehow the truth has been very distorted. I would love to see polling data that asks “If
everyone catches COVID, what % of people do you think will die from it?” And other ‘factual’
questions, to find out just how distorted the general public’s view of reality is.
35. somervta says:

June 17, 2020 at 7:40 am ~new~
A significantly better collection of the case in favour of the GEU petition is here, linking all of the
back-and-forth between Hsu and his opponents.

o zero says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:02 am ~new~
I had to stop reading when the post decided to attack him based on who signed the petition,
cherry-picking the worst of the signatories and using that as evidence for the accusations. No. No.
No.
o Pepe says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:31 pm ~new~
Yeah, that is not better in any way. That is just the original lynch mob organizer flinging a lot of
shit at a lot of people. Also, using the Southern Law Poverty Center as some sort of authority.
 Matt M says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:37 pm ~new~
Also, using the Southern Law Poverty Center as some sort of authority.
Nearly every powerful institution in society believes they are. If Hsu is officially on SPLC’s “bad
person” list, his time is limited and this fight is probably not worth having at all…
 Randy M says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:43 pm ~new~
Or alternatively, is a very important fight.

 Pepe says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:48 pm ~new~
He is not, but some people that signed the letter supporting him are, therefore, he is guilty by
association.
June 17, 2020 at 7:06 pm ~new~
The SPLC enemies list can be pushed back on. Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali haven’t done too
badly for themselves.

 Clutzy says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:28 pm ~new~
Didn’t they use non-American courts. The broad, and not very well supported in tradition, Sullivan
case has more or less sanctioned lying about public figures in the US.
The only major winner of a libel case recently was Sandman, who was just a kid that media people
started lying about.

Hide ↑
 John Richards says:

June 17, 2020 at 10:01 pm ~new~
I wonder what it is about these two individuals, in particular, that helped them get out of their
clutches.
Hide ↑
 DeWitt says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:45 pm ~new~
Do you mind sharing with the class, or are you just going to be smugly implying stuff?
Hide ↑
o AliceToBob says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:16 pm ~new~
@ somervta
After labeling as racist a number of academics who signed the letter defending Hsu, the author of
your linked-to article wraps up with:

To be clear, all these academics are free to research, write, speak, and publish as they wish.
However, in the context of defending a colleague against accusations of scientific racism, a more
strategic decision may have been to not sign at all.
The first sentence is a lie, as evidenced by this whole crusade to purge Hsu. The second is a blatant
threat.
If by “better” you meant “bottom-of-the-barrel scummy”, then I agree with your characterization.
 keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:40 pm ~new~
Has anyone advocated the claim that Hsu shouldn’t research, write, speak, or publish as he
wishes? I thought this was just about whether he would continue to have a major administrative
position that helps oversee the resources given to *other* people’s research.
 AliceToBob says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:40 pm ~new~
Has anyone advocated the claim that Hsu shouldn’t research, write, speak, or publish as he wishes?
Hsu’s job is being threatened due to some combination of the above. I’m unsure if the constraints
you mention have been made more explicit than that.

I thought this was just about whether he would continue to have a major administrative position
that helps oversee the resources given to *other* people’s research.
Correct. Hsu’s job is being threatened due to some combination of the above.
36. gbdub says:

June 17, 2020 at 7:18 am ~new~
Scott,
FWIW I looked at the petition link last night and it’s a Google Doc that a lot of people appeared to
still be editing. I could see people being uncomfortable with affixing their name to something that
is still a work in progress, so if I’m not misinterpreting what is going on, it would probably be good
to add a warning to this effect and an update when the petition text is final.
o 10240 says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:28 pm ~new~
It is final by now (final petition, form to sign).

37. rocoulm says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:15 am ~new~
This week on opinions that don’t matter…
Does anyone find it odd the way the phrase “social distancing” has been used? Like, it’s used to
mean “physical distance in social situations”, but it sounds to me like it should be more…allegorical,
I guess.
If you’d asked me pre-COVID what the term meant, I probably would’ve thought a “socially
distant” person was enigmatic, hard to get to know well, that sort of thing.
June 17, 2020 at 7:31 am ~new~
It’s not just you, I think it’s a pretty silly-sounding term. ‘Give everyone six feet of personal space,’
for example, feels much less forced.

June 17, 2020 at 7:50 am ~new~
Agreed, it should be called “physical distancing,” while people should be encouraged to stay
“socially close” via online/telephone interactions.

 Evan Þ says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:43 am ~new~
The WHO made just that change back on March 20th. Unfortunately, the old term’s stuck around.
 Kaitian says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:50 am ~new~
I think people like it because it sounds like “social media” which is hip and modern. But “physical
distancing” just has a weird rhythm, I’m not surprised it hasn’t caught on.
Apparently the term was coined in 2003, when “not physically meeting” was a much larger issue
for most people than it is now.

 keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:44 pm ~new~
It’s interesting how much sensitive details of the timing some of the terminological changes has
mattered. They got the words “SARS-COV-1” and “COVID-19” out there in February, which was
early enough to largely catch on. The 2015 choice to stop naming diseases after places, jobs, or
animals was very successful for this disease, but way too late for 2009 H1N1. This terminological
change on “physical distancing” was just too late in the process – three weeks earlier and it surely
would have caught on, because all the US restrictions and most of the European ones would have
included the newer term.

o gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:57 am ~new~
It’s more like “societal distancing”, but that’s slightly trickier to say. Or “distant socializing”, but
again, awkward. You need something that is easy to remember and doesn’t already mean
something else.
o Eric Rall says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:41 am ~new~
I think it was originally supposed to mean something like “reduce the number of people you have
close physical contact with”, which if applied on a population level will generally place people
substantially further away on a social graph, meaning that the virus will have to make more hops
in order to get to you from one of the people who are currently infected.
This was not explained clearly to the public, and one of the most-repeated admonitions in support
of “social distancing” was “stay at least 6 feet away from others when in a public place” which
specifically mentions increased physical distance. So understandably, people started understanding
and using “social distancing” to refer to physical distancing in public places.

o J says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:42 am ~new~
Originally they just called it distancing, but there were tragic misunderstandings with programmers
trying to maximize Hamming distance, pilots maximizing geodesic distance, and mathematicians
maximizing Hausdorff distance. Now they’ve clarified it to mean social distance, which we have all
taken to mean maximizing the degree to which we ostracize others based on slight political
differences.
38. Nick says:

June 17, 2020 at 7:12 am ~new~
On a completely different topic: I’ve been reading some honkaku mysteries. Honkaku is Japanese
for “orthodox” or “authentic”; it’s a subgenre that revived Golden Age conventions of mystery
writing with strong puzzle plots. Apparently it has branched out in interesting ways since then, but
I haven’t looked into that; maybe someone more knowledgeable about that could share.
I started with Soji Shimada’s The Tokyo Zodiac Murders, and then I moved onto his Murder in the
Crooked House, both from Pushkin press. The first was an amazing mystery. The second was
pretty good, too; I only found the solution a bit out there. Shimada takes the puzzle very seriously,
to the extent that there is a note in each book telling the reader when all the needed information
has been given and challenging him to solve it before the detective does. It’s a great deal of fun;
words cannot describe my elation when I discovered the key to the first book and worked out most
of the mystery. Alas, Murder in the Crooked House wounded my pride somewhat. 🙁
I had my eye on The Decagon House Murders by Yukito Ayatsuji next, and I hear it has an English
translation, but I can’t actually find it in print, and Pushkin’s edition is not coming out until
December. If anyone has suggestions on what I should read til then, let me know.
39. AlesZiegler says:

June 17, 2020 at 7:09 am ~new~
If you are in need of distractions, I just discovered few hours of Larry Susskind, who uncanilly
resembles a character played by Charles Dance on Game of Thrones, explaining quantum
mechanics to Stanford students. It is amazingly good, at least if you, like me, do not know
anything about the subject. He also has similar lectures on special and general relativity.
o smocc says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:14 am ~new~
Sorry for the pedantry but it’s Lenny, not Larry.

 AlesZiegler says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:26 am ~new~
Ups

June 17, 2020 at 8:03 am ~new~
its lenny
40. hash872 says:

June 17, 2020 at 6:25 am ~new~
Would the US government taking a small % out of everyone’s paycheck for retirement savings, and
putting it into an index fund, be workable? Especially if it was opt-out, not opt-in- the feds do it
automatically as a nudge, if you have strong feelings about ‘government shouldn’t be making me
save for retirement’ you can just fill out a very small form and they’ll return the money, and stop
doing it going forward.
Lack of retirement savings has been widely described as a potential crisis here in the US, and many
of us look askew at Social Security. Bush’s plan to replace SS with a market-based retirement
scheme was defeated- but what if, everyone with a 401k or pension contributions registered as
such with the IRS, and if they’re not contributing, the IRS withholds an extra say 2% from their
check, and puts it into a Vanguard-style retirement target index fund? The amount actually taken
out from the paycheck would be less than 2% due to its tax-deferred status. And as mentioned, if
you have really strong feelings about this, you can easily opt out. This program would include the
self-employed (the IRS just includes the 2% in your estimated tax liability- again, would be less
than 2% in practice), as they are regularly described as not saving much.
While I doubt that 2% off of everyone’s check is going to make for substantial retirement savings,
it is *something* (and maybe after the program gets off the ground, the % could be gradually
increased a bit over time). 5%+ would be ideal, but I think that’s too drastic to just jump into. US
equity markets would be happy for the extra funds (don’t many stable developed countries like
Japan have high domestic savings rates?) It would be a nudge and not a requirement. It would
financially help everyone below the level of upper middle class, which should theoretically make the
left happy (yes I understand they’d complain in practice).
An interesting argument that might make the right happy is that having financial investments has
been associated with conservative values (just saw a Marginal Revolution piece on this). Once you
have some ‘skin in the game’ in a market economy, one starts to lean at least a bit towards being
small c conservative, pro-market, less of a ‘burn down the system/nationalize everything’
AOC/Sanders/far left mindset. Just a thought.
(A variation on this would be a similar nudge to make employees use their employer 401k
matching- I’ve heard that many workers simply don’t take advantage of it. Each employer with a
matching program gets registered with the feds, if their employee doesn’t use it the amount gets
taken out automatically- again, you can opt out if you’d like)
o mfm32 says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:57 am ~new~
This has been proposed a lot. It actually faces a lot of criticism from both sides of the political
spectrum. The left has the concerns you would expect. But critics from the right will often raise the
problem that the index funds anointed under this scheme would immediately and inevitably
become the most dominant forces in the market, which would be distortionary on its own and
would introduce substantial risk (or opportunity, I suppose) for government influence over
companies and markets. At an extreme, you risk turning the stock market into some weird fascist /
socialist hybrid.
While I initially thought a scheme like this was a no-brainer, I found those critiques compelling. I
think is is a general lesson about thinking through the political and structural consequences of
government-led “nudges” that might seem obvious from a more narrow perspective.
 hash872 says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:08 am ~new~
I meant that Vanguard or Black Rock would manage the funds, and that they’d be in say Bob the
Bartender’s name- not owned by the US federal government. (I share your concerns about the
government being a passive investor in every company). Bob could even liquidate his retirements
funds and spend them on a speedboat or strippers if he wants- it’s his money. Here the feds are
simply acting as a pass-through mechanism to pass the funds along to the market- the same way
one’s current employer is taking a bit out of one’s paycheck and giving it to Charles Schwab or
whoever
 mfm32 says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:19 am ~new~
Yes, understood. But the selection of approved funds gives the government a large amount of
influence, enough to be substantially concerning on its own. There is not a single index, and there
are of course lots of funds that track any popular index. How do you choose which indices are
included, and which manager? And then what is the default, which is of course most people will
stick with?
The manager is important for lots of reasons, not least because the fund manager ultimately
chooses how to vote the fund’s shares in any corporate governance vote.
Should the set of choices include an environmental, social, and governance fund? Which one?
Should it be the default?
These sorts of decisions would have enormous market consequences and cannot be avoided in
these schemes. I find it very concerning for a government–even a well functioning one–to make
those decisions over a capital base that would constitute a large portion of the economy.
 hash872 says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:35 am ~new~
Is there any way we could back of the envelope calculate how much 2% of the American worker’s
paycheck is, out of everyone who’s not using a 401k now? That way we could figure out how much
money we’re talking about, and see if it would majorly influence existing capital markets.
My Vanguard Target whatever I believe has a pretty diverse mixing of US & European equity
markets, with some growth stuff (Asia) thrown in there

Hide ↑
 mfm32 says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:57 am ~new~
Very rough “fast math:”
(1) Let’s say $10T total US wages (outdated source). Probably an undercount because it won’t
include self-employment income.
(2) 2% of that is $200B
(3) Apparently 40% of the population uses a 401(k) today (source), so let’s say the net increase
from your proposal would be $120B
(4) That’s a ~25% increase in the total mutual fund market (source), all controlled by a single
“plan sponsor” (in this case the U.S. government). By way of comparison, a fund company that
captured the entirety of this new business would eclipse all of the existing players in that market
except Vanguard.
And that’s only at a 2% savings rate, which is anemic as you note.
This proposal would turn the fund industry into a competition for the U.S. government mandated
business. I suspect most existing plan sponsors would follow the U.S. government scheme as well,
both to capture economies of scale and to avoid regulatory and political risk of deviating from the
government scheme. That would increase the market power of the U.S. government decisions.
Hide ↑
 hash872 says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:19 am ~new~
Yup, these are all great points. And I’m sure the Dems would demand investment ‘requirements’ to
let the bill go through, ESG or green or what have you. On the right, Rubio and others are working
to I guess prevent the federal employees’ pension from in any way investing in China? So lots of
room for political interference altogether.
It’s too bad, I personally was less interested in the ‘help the working classes retire’ side than the
‘let’s get all of society invested in the markets so that regular folks have skin in the game with
capitalism, become more small c conservative, don’t want to burn the system down as much’, etc.
(Also, how do high-savings countries like Japan do it? Individual households just choose to invest
in their markets directly, no government nudge? I’ve heard that most of the Japanese
government’s debt is owned domestically)

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 8:10 am ~new~
Yeah, I used to be “this is a no-brainer” camp, too. But I’ve just become so much more suspicious
of people tinkering with things and there’s so many ways things could go wrong.
We also had the bad timing of Bush proposing this just before a market crash, so people don’t
fairly evaluate it.

June 17, 2020 at 8:27 am ~new~
As a left-wing anti-monopolist those right-wing arguments were also my arguments.
What are the typical left-wing concerns, then?


June 17, 2020 at 8:36 am ~new~
Left-wing concerns are that they just don’t trust the market. Sometimes with good reason,
sometimes not.
I can sit down and explain the market risks but I’ll just be Miss Othmar.
June 17, 2020 at 7:01 am ~new~
It would greatly aggravate the existing problems with index funds in that they eliminate the vital
feedback signal that the stock market is supposed to provide. If index funds are a little fringe
thing, then they are a low-effort way for a small investor to achieve near-optimal results while
freeloading on the more informed and focused investors’ analytical efforts. If index funds are the
One True Way that everybody invests, then we lose the ability to say “While generally bullish on
the market as a whole, the consensus among high-effort investors is that XYZcorp is doing
something really stupid and a whole lot of capital is going to shift to the more sensible ABC Inc if
XYZ doesn’t change its ways”. This results in highly suboptimal allocation of resources, and
eventually no one will have reason to be generally bullish on the market.
TL, DR: The government shouldn’t be in the business of picking the winners in the stock market,
not even if it outsources that decision to a committee at Standard & Poor’s.

 Randy M says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:05 am ~new~
At that point, does the finance industry provide any added value?
 mfm32 says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:12 am ~new~
I find this argument very hard to understand. The more passive money there is in the market, the
greater the returns to putting in effort for active investing. At the core of every “index fund doom
loop” argument I’ve read is a claim that passive investment crowds out active investment, but the
dynamics pretty clearly work in the opposite direction. Passive investment raises the rewards for
active investing.

June 17, 2020 at 7:28 am ~new~
Passive investment raises the rewards for active investing.
It doesn’t much raise the rewards for active investing in the stocks making up the index, because
they’re basically locked relative to one another by so much immobile passive money that the active
investors can neither move them or profit from their movements. There will still be a secondary
market in non-indexed stocks, with the possibility for large gains and losses, but I don’t think that
nearly makes up for it.
Also, what does it matter whether there would theoretically be rewards to be made in active
investing, if the government (or the managers of your corporate 401K, whatever) takes most of
your investing money and puts it in index funds whether you like it or not?
Leave it alone, and if the index stocks stagnate then yes people will rationally shift their investment
money to more active investments. This proposal breaks that signal as well, and largely locks the
middle class out of the still-profitable side of the market. Yes, there will be a small population of
rich (and a few very dedicated middle class) investors profiting in the non-indexed market. Why do
you care?
 mfm32 says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:38 am ~new~
Index funds are price takers. They don’t “lock” anything in. They don’t exert price pressure at all,
in the main.
If we take the simplified case of an ETF and exclude index rebalancing for the moment, there is no
price-moving trading that happens at all within an index fund. If the underlying stocks move, the
ETF arbitrage mechanism reflects that (eventually) in the ETF price. But the ETF itself doesn’t do
anything in the market. And all of the other activity is by definition active.
It’s almost a contradiction in terms to worry about the whole market becoming passive. The
mechanisms that underlie the market don’t work that way.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 8:21 am ~new~
I find this argument very hard to understand. The more passive money there is in the market, the
greater the returns to putting in effort for active investing. At the core of every “index fund doom
loop” argument I’ve read is a claim that passive investment crowds out active investment, but the
dynamics pretty clearly work in the opposite direction. Passive investment raises the rewards for
active investing.
Passive investing is by definition investing that ignores price. You put your money into an ETF and
leave it there until you retire, and have no opinion on the price (to high, to low, just right) at any
point. However you ETF is managed, it buys bundles based on the valuations of the stocks, so
when you put your money into an ETF you functionally are saying ‘I agree with the market’s most
recent move in this stock’ which means you are expressing an opinion without having an opinion.
This would be kind of like if in an election everyone who didn’t vote automatically would have (at
random times) a vote put in for the person in the lead at that point in the count.
Now how does the active managing portion of the market exploit this inefficiency? The traditional
way is to use arbitrage and sell the over valued stock vs the undervalued stocks, but arbitrage
requires a return to the ‘correct’ valuation to work, and if 13.5% of US income is automatically put
into an ETF every week then there is an automatic bid for every company, and any divergence
between stocks has a self reinforcing mechanism which pushes against the arbitrage.
This is more or less the same mechanism that causes ‘excess’ liquidity to drive markets up. The
cheap borrowing reinforces optimistic investors more than it does pessimistic investors (buying and
shorting are not mirror images of each other and this asymmetry is amplified by liquidity/margin
buying). Going net long the market with leverage is a self reinforcing position in a world with
excess liquidity*, and to prevent a crash you have to perpetually maintain excess liquidity.
Returning back to the ETF buying, like excess liquidity having to be maintained, you have to
maintain a net positive purchase of the ETFs. If you have a spherical economy with a perfect age,
income and employment distribution then things are fine, for every retiree who starts selling his
ETFs you have a new worker with exactly the same level of income just starting a job and buying
exatly that amount of ETFs for their retirement.
If you do not have a spherical cow economy then there will be at some point a switch from net
buying to net selling of ETFs which will start a reinforced market decline (see Japan over the past
40 years).
*Excess liquidity here means something like the cost of borrowing money failing to increase with
increases in borrowing.
 mfm32 says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:43 am ~new~
I don’t follow your argument because I am having trouble connecting it to the actual mechanics of
an ETF. As I’m sure you know, the ETF in which you own shares doesn’t “buy” anything in the
sense of putting in a bid for a stock. It merely exchanges shares in itself for baskets of underlying
securities. And it is generally passive in those transactions. Other market participants come to it
and make exchanges. It doesn’t prompt them. It is a market maker.

All of that means the price discovery is offloaded to other market participants, who are by
definition active investors. The fact that there is lots of “slow” money ready to follow price changes
raises the reward to driving that price discovery, for example by putting in a bid for a stock that
you think is undervalued. Or investing in an index that isn’t market-cap weighted. Or any number
of other active strategies that still dominate volume in the market.
The complaints about short selling are an unneeded complexity here. There are lots of strategies
beyond long/short, you can get price discovery without short selling at all (not that I’d support
that), and short selling has always been a very difficult game because of the positive expected
return of the stock market. That short sellers complain loudly about all of these facts is just self-
serving noise.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 9:19 am ~new~
I don’t follow your argument because I am having trouble connecting it to the actual mechanics of an
ETF. As I’m sure you know, the ETF in which you own shares doesn’t “buy” anything in the sense of
putting in a bid for a stock. It merely exchanges shares in itself for baskets of underlying securities.
And it is generally passive in those transactions. Other market participants come to it and make
exchanges. It doesn’t prompt them. It is a market maker.
How is an ETF formed? At first it has zero value, so say you start an ETF with a million dollars. You
call it the S&P 500 ETF, and it has $1,000,000 in assets in cash. Will this ETF mimic the returns of
the S&P 500? No, it will mimic the returns of cash since its only asset is cash, for it to mimic the
returns of the S&P 500 it will have to exchange that cash for claims on other assets that mimic
(either directly through stock purchases or indirectly through derivative exposure) the S&P 500. In
other words you are exchanging the cash in the ETF for the stocks that represent the S&P 500
(sometimes with some extra distance). Now if someone else wants $1,000,000 of exposure to my
S&P 500 etf (a I don’t sell my million directly) they can create new shares of my ETF by putting
cash directly into the ETF which then is (in fairly short order) ‘swapped’ for exposure to the S&P
500.
It doesn’t prompt them. It is a market maker.
This view skips the step of how ETFs get the cash to become market makers. It starts from the
supposition that there is a fixed number of ETF shares and S&P 500 shares and there is simply a
shifting around of those shares, and ignores that first a deposit has to be made, which then creates
the ETF shares which are then exchanged for the basket of shares.
for example by putting in a bid for a stock that you think is undervalued
But not, for example, shorting a stock that you think is overvalued.
The way that you can take advantage of this situation is to front-run the purchases, ie to add more
buying pressure to the market and to skew the market higher, and then to front run the selling
when the inflection point is reached to then skew the markets lower.
Hide ↑
 mfm32 says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:01 pm ~new~
Unless I misunderstand you, your description bears no resemblance to how ETFs work. There are
no deposits to an ETF. No one “puts cash” into an ETF. In the main, the ETF never buys or sells
shares for cash. It only acquires shares through in-kind creation / redemption transactions, which
can occur only with investors who are by definition “active” in the sense that they do not simply
index. In short, your proposed mechanism whereby ETFs bid up stocks cannot happen, because
ETFs don’t enter bids.
And the short selling point is still a red herring. Most goods in the world can’t easily be shorted, yet
price discovery still works. I agree with the claim that short selling helps market efficiency in a
number of ways, but it’s clearly not required for price discovery to work.
What you refer to as “front running” is the mechanism by which price discovery in a market works.
Because passive investors do not, by definition, take directional positions in the market, their only
participation in that process is to buy from or sell to the informed traders at the market price. That
supports price discovery, because it makes it easier and more efficient for an informed trader to
take a directional position.
There is still Bill Sharpe’s critique that active investing must, on average, lose money so it ought
never exist in an efficient market. But that is an argument that applies no matter how much
passive investing there is in the market.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 4:01 pm ~new~
Unless I misunderstand you, your description bears no resemblance to how ETFs work. There are no
deposits to an ETF. No one “puts cash” into an ETF
Explain how an ETF is formed. At one point it doesn’t exist, at another point it is set up and ‘tracks’
something else which has an established value. Walk through that middle period.
Hide ↑
 mfm32 says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:46 pm ~new~
With the caveat that ETF formation is a sideshow that must be quantitatively irrelevant to the
overall market, here’s how it works in simple form.
The trust for the ETF is formed in partnership an “authorized participant,” always a large
institutional investor. That investor pledges shares in the underlying basket of securities to the ETF,
receiving in return shares of the ETF. The authorized participant then sells the ETF shares on the
market. The market price of the ETF shares track the underlying security basket by the arbitrage
opportunity of creation / redemption transactions. Crucially, all of the ETF transactions are in-kind.
They do not involve trading cash for shares, either of the ETF or the underlying securities. The ETF
doesn’t “buy” or “sell” anything in the traditional sense, and certainly it doesn’t participate in the
standard stock exchange trading processes.
Could you argue that these dynamics create a distortionary effect on prices of underlying
securities? Maybe. I personally don’t think there’s a compelling argument there, but I can’t exclude
the possibility.
But to make that argument you have to address–and therefore understand–the mechanisms as
they actually work.

Hide ↑
 nkurz says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:27 pm ~new~
@mfm32:
> Crucially, all of the ETF transactions are in-kind.
I’m not familiar with the creation of ETF’s, but the beginner’s level summary provided by Charles
Schwab says: “Under certain circumstances, an AP may provide cash in lieu of some or all of the
basket securities, along with a transaction fee to offset the cost to the ETF of acquiring the
securities.”
Is this a sufficiently rare event that it can always be ignored?
> Could you argue that these dynamics create a distortionary effect on prices of underlying
securities? Maybe. I personally don’t think there’s a compelling argument there, but I can’t exclude
the possibility.
Both you and baconbits9 seem to be assuming an open-ended broad index ETF consisting only of
long stocks, but does your opinion apply to all ETF’s? For example, if the 2% of all US payroll
proposed by hash872 was mandated to be put in a particular ETF physically backed by platinum
each year, would you similarly think that it would have no effect on the price of platinum? I’m not
sure it would, but intuitively I’d think it must. If it would have an effect, why would stocks be
different? If no effect, how would this work once there is not enough platinum at the current price
to back the fund?

Hide ↑
 mfm32 says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:15 pm ~new~
@nkurz
I’m not an expert, but I strongly suspect cash transactions by ETFs to be very rare. The simple
reason is that the tax-advantaged status that ETFs enjoy (and their main advantage over mutual
funds) relies on the in-kind transactions. Cash transactions ought to be taxed. But there are lots of
ETFs in the world and they have gotten more complicated in recent years.
As for the impact of ETFs on price, let me clarify: of course ETFs have an impact on prices of the
underlying assets. If nothing else, purchases and sales of the ETF shares induces trading in the
underlying through the arbitrage mechanism. I just don’t see a reason to believe that effect
distorts price discovery. By definition, index investors are informationless traders who buy and sell
at the market price, more or less randomly (let us simplify and say uniformly). I don’t see why we
can’t treat them as a passive pool of liquidity, willingly taking the other side of trades that active
investors offer. In that model, they support price discovery by making assets more liquid. The
benefit would be increased if you assume–as I think is reasonable–that before indexing most
passive investors were not particularly good at active investing. The total effect would be an
increase in liquidity, which makes it easier for the remaining active investors to act on their
information advantage, combined with an increase in the average quality (i.e. information
advantage) of active investors.
As I’ve said, there may be arguments that an increase in passive investing is a threat to price
discovery. But I think those arguments have to be consonant with the way the market works at a
mechanical level (vs. the abstractions that most participants and observer typically use).
Statements that imply index funds are “locked in” to something or “forced to buy” require
justification based on the actual mechanics. I chose ETFs as an example to explore how that might
work, and I personally found the resulting explanation quite lacking.

Hide ↑
 nkurz says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:43 pm ~new~
@mfm32:
Thanks, I appreciate the added details.

Hide ↑
 hash872 says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:12 am ~new~
I don’t really agree with this popular criticism of index funds (if this were the case, doesn’t that
simply put more potential money on the table for the smart active funds who are so much sharper
than the dumb passive sheep?) But if that’s the only sticking point, then we can offer whatever are
normal retirement plan options that existing 401k participants are already using- mutual funds or
‘growth’ funds or whatever.
The point is a nudge to take a small % out of everyone’s paycheck to save for retirement.
(Plus I believe the Vanguard Target Retirement X Year fund thingy re-allocates a bunch as we get
closer to retirement, right? More bonds, less equities, etc.)

June 17, 2020 at 8:29 am ~new~
(if this were the case, doesn’t that simply put more potential money on the table for the smart active
funds who are so much sharper than the dumb passive sheep?
How will the smart active fund managers make money on this?
 Anatid says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:26 pm ~new~
They will look for stocks that are overvalued or undervalued relative to their future dividends, and
they will buy the undervalued ones and sell the overvalued ones. Then they’ll wait to collect an
outsize profit from buying undervalued stocks that go on to pay out a lot of dividends. If there are
very few active investors compared to passive investors, many stocks will be trading far from the
expected value of their future dividends and it will be possible to make lots of money by this
method. Lots of people will notice this and become active investors and they will make lots of
money doing it. The activity of these active investors will cause stock prices to quickly move toward
the expected value of their future dividends.

Hide ↑
o matkoniecz says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:06 am ~new~
There will be a huge temptation
– (a) to raid this funds in a future (either by individuals if it is their property or by government if it
is on some government account)
– (b) charge absurdly high fees
Both happened in Poland where basically this system* was tried under name OFE (“Otwarte
Fundusze Emerytalne”). See https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otwarty_fundusz_emerytalny (no English
Wikipedia page, sorry)

*except “index” part
June 17, 2020 at 7:40 am ~new~
Just going to piggyback here to say, those of you with teenagers, strongly consider setting them up
a custodial IRA. Then get them in the habit that when they get money from babysitting or mowing
lawns or bagging groceries or whatever, they put 10% in their IRA. Start that early and they will
retire with a very nice sum. Or retire early. What a great gift for your kids. Join the rentier class.
The hardest part of retirement savings is going from “nothing” to “literally anything.” Go ahead and
set that system up for your kids so they don’t have to try to understand what the hell they should
be doing when they’re in their early 20s and are still dumb about money.
 hash872 says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:23 am ~new~
Yeah, great point. Growing up in a not-wealthy/not financially sophisticated family, I didn’t know
any of this stuff until I got quite a bit older. I definitely could’ve benefited from the custodial IRA.
More than the actual amount saved from teenage jobs, the important thing is ‘building the habit’.
I know Rich Dad/Poor Dad came out a while ago, but I’m still a bit fascinated by the topic of what
upper class families pass on to their kids (as I had none of it, other than I guess a love for books)
June 17, 2020 at 8:32 am ~new~
Custodial ROTH IRA, not Traditional. Schwab does it, some custodians do not. Remember that the
minor must have earned income of you’ll run afoul of contribution limits.
June 17, 2020 at 8:39 am ~new~
If you do this fricking teach them how to manage it. Don’t leave them in the position of having to,
as an adult, reach out to a random person in the investment firm to ask how to add or withdraw
from the account.
I was in this position with Waddell & Reed when I needed to liquidate my account for expenses in
2007. Thankfully I eventually figured it out, but the difficulty in figuring out how to access my
money certainly made me leery of investing with a brokerage firm in the future.
(I understand that my account was not an IRA, still it’s necessary that they understand how to
handle any investment account. And really, be careful with mandating this for your child. Get them
to buy in to it, don’t just use your power as the adult to force them in to it.)
o digbyforever says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:27 am ~new~
I don’t know how relevant this is, but it’s worth highlighting a small ball version of this that was
around for a few years, the so-called MyRA account. I think the key distinction was it was a Roth
IRA that had to be invested in Treasury Bonds, so low risk, low reward, and the limits were much
smaller, if nothing. I know I tried to get a buddy of mine who’s never had a job that offered
retirement benefits to sign up so at least he could put away something for the future (and I think
you could rollover into a normal Roth IRA if you saved enough), and that I thought it was a decent
idea to provide a way for folks who otherwise wouldn’t have access to the retirement infrastructure
to participate. But wikipedia indicates that apparently there were only 20,000 accounts total when
they decided to scrap the program.

o keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:48 pm ~new~
What is the advantage of this over a system where the fund is entirely internal to the government,
and the total value of the fund is determined by the dollar value of current contributions to the
fund? That is, instead of giving everyone shares in the corporate stock market, give people shares
in future wages/salaries. Those should be more stable than the stock market, but should also grow
in line with general growth.

June 17, 2020 at 2:56 pm ~new~
This is presumably what social security will become when the trust fund is exhausted.
 Christophe Biocca says:

June 17, 2020 at 3:02 pm ~new~
I’m not clear on what math you’re proposing here.
Is the idea that if your average annual contributions to the fund constituted 1 in 400,000,000 over
your working life, once you’re retired you’re entitled to 1 in 400,000,000 of the fund’s income
during retirement?
If that’s the case, working population is static, and taking 70% of working post-tax income as the
income level you need for retirement (which is probably an underestimate, from my reading),
you’d need the fund to capture approximately 40% of post-other-tax income. That’s a big chunk,
and it’s worse if working population shrinks.

o Juanita del Valle says:
June 18, 2020 at 2:55 am ~new~
The Australian superannuation scheme is similar to this. Individuals can choose who will manage
their compulsory savings, from a long list of fund managers, who in turn offer different investment
plans. There is no opt-out option: you can only access your funds pre-retirement age if you have
are able to claim, among other possible conditions, severe financial hardship.
As you suggest, this has resulted in Australia having a very large stock of funds under
management given its population size. And some people have claimed that it has, at times,
encouraged the populace towards more right-wing positions. For example, a proposed tax on
mining companies supposedly became unpopular partly because of the possible impact on these
savings accounts.
Overall though, the system has bipartisan support, with only debate in recent years being about
how much the rate of forced savings should be increased by (it is currently 9.5%, the left-of-center
party wants to push it higher than the right-of-center party does).
There are also more pernicious effects. The fund managers have a very, very large interest in the
system remaining as it is, or being redesigned to channel more money to be under their
management. And there are various issues with the way tax rules interact with the system, which
often end up disproportionately benefiting the well-off.

41. DM says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:45 am ~new~
Just on the very narrow question of ‘was Molyneux known to be alt-right in 2017’ a quick look at
wikipedia reveals that *all* of their citations to mainstream sources calling Molyneux ‘alt-right’
come from that year. So it’s simply wrong for Hsu to say ‘Molyneux was not a controversial figure
in 2017, although he has since become one’.
I don’t think Hsu should be fired. But I don’t think going to bat from his as personally a nice guy
and therefore *couldn’t* be a racist is a very good look. Though I’m not saying he *is* a racist.
Just that the fact that he is nice and smart and speaks carefully doesn’t mean he *isn’t* in
sympathy with the racist alt-right. Steve Sailor’s comments here reveal him to be a smart man
who (often) speaks carefully and reasonable on a variety of topics, and I have absolutely no
qualms about saying that he is alt-right, or that being alt-right is bad and immoral.
o Michael Watts says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:12 am ~new~
I tend to agree that the defense Scott has posted makes no sense.
For example, I question the intellectual honesty of this:

his occasional discussion of the genetics of race (basically just repeating the same “variance between
vs. within clusters” distinction everyone else does, see eg here
where the link points to a post that does indeed repeat the same thing that “everyone else” says
on the subject but — if you read beyond the headline — only for the purpose of making fun of the
stupidity of “everyone else”.
Even if you don’t bother to read beyond the headline, the post is only titled No scientific basis for
race in the URL slug. Down in the webpage itself, the title is “No scientific basis for race”.
Defend him on grounds you can actually defend; don’t defend him on the grounds that he simply
meant the opposite of everything he said for the last 10 years.

 DM says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:33 am ~new~
I don’t understand the issue enough to know if you are right, but *IF* you are, that merits a
correction from Scott, I’d have thought.

 Byrel Mitchell says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:05 am ~new~
In that article he says:

One thing commenters seem particularly confused about is the difference between phenotypic and
genetic variation. The clustering data show very clearly that, in certain subspaces, the genetic
variation within a particular population cluster is less than between clusters. That is, the genetic
“distance” between two individuals within a cluster is typically much less than the distance between
clusters.
To me that counts as “variance between vs. variance within clusters.”
I don’t think I agree with you on what ‘everyone says’. It seems to me that you’re saying
“everyone says” there’s no scientific basis for race; but I don’t think that’s actually compatible with
the research. I’m pretty sure Scott has posted on this before, but I’m not finding it in a quick
search.
 Michael Watts says:

June 17, 2020 at 6:16 am ~new~
It seems to me that you’re saying “everyone says” there’s no scientific basis for race; but I don’t think
that’s actually compatible with the research.
I agree with you on both points:
1. I am saying that what “everyone says” is that there’s no scientific basis for race.
2. The idea that there is no scientific basis for race is not compatible with the research, or really
with anything else.
As to point (1), compare https://twitter.com/lizstein_/status/1265071486638800897

The imprecise use of race—a social construct—as a proxy for pathology in medical education is a
vestige of institutionalized racism.
June 17, 2020 at 5:27 am ~new~
I would call 2017 the transition period for Molyneux. Before that he was an AnCap with perhaps
rationalist trimmings? I watched him sometimes in 2015-2016 mainly because of his sharp
criticisms of the media. After 2016 I lost interest, but he’d been doing his AnCap thing for more
than a decade, so I think it’s reasonable to look at someone’s long history and say “oh, this is a
libertarian” and be forgiven for not noticing the exact instant he started marching up the Authority
axis on the political compass.

 DM says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:44 am ~new~
Yeah, it’s possible that *it only came out that he was alt-right so close in time to the podcast
invitation that Hsu hadn’t heard yet* is a reasonable enough excuse. The fact that the Turkheimer
and Flynn went on the podcast suggests that might be right.
As a-relatively moderate by European standards (i.e. I don’t want to abolish capitalism) but
probably not US-left-winger, since culture war is briefly allowed here, I will voice my suspicion that
AnCaps are probably *more* sympathetic to the alt-right on average than randomly selected
members of the population, despite this making no sense at all at the level of their explicitly
professed ideology. However, I have no hard evidence to back this up, and there are obviously
loads of AnCaps who aren’t anything like that at all. (Having read a little of his blog, I’d be shocked
if Michael Huemer had anything other than entirely negative feelings about the alt-right at every
level, even the unconscious.) And even if my prejudice is correct, I certainly don’t think it gives
people a standing obligation to check whether anybody AnCap is dodgy in this way before going on
their podcast.
 brmic says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:53 am ~new~
from the previously posted link, wikipedia state 5 jan 2017::

Molyneux, Stefan (12 February 2016). “Why Liberals Are Wrong About Inequality – Bill Whittle and
Stefan Molyneux”. YouTube.
Molyneux, Stefan (8 July 2016). “An Honest Conversation About Race – Jared Taylor and Stefan
Molyneux”. YouTube.
Molyneux, Stefan (August 30, 2016). “What Is The Alt-Right? – Vox Day and Stefan Molyneux”.
YouTube.
Molyneux, Stefan (October 6, 2016). “In Trump We Trust – Ann Coulter and Stefan Molyneux”.
YouTube.
Molyneux, Stefan (November 7, 2016). “Why Political Correctness Must End – Milo Yiannopoulos
and Stefan Molyneux”. YouTube.
AFAICT Hsu was on the show in May 2017 and a minimum of due diligence could have informed
him who he was talking to. AFAICT Hsu has held leadership positions from at least 2012, so it’s
inconceivable to me that he wouldn’t have developed a minimal sense of ‘not every interview
request is worth agreeing to’ by 2017. (Per his wikipedia page, Hsu became a professor in 1998, a
CEO in 2003. Him not having developed even minimal media savvy by 2017 is to phrase it kindly, a
stretch.)
 DM says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:03 am ~new~
‘AFAICT Hsu has held leadership positions from at least 2012, so it’s inconceivable to me that he
wouldn’t have developed a minimal sense of ‘not every interview request is worth agreeing to’ by
2017.’
Why do you think the second thing follows from the first? I am suspicious of the purity of Hsu’s
motivations, but I still don’t find this particular inference very obvious.
 Simon_Jester says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:12 am ~new~
Because if nothing else, a man who doesn’t know how to stop his time from being wasted will not
be able to remain an effective administrator, organizer, and leader for fifteen years at a stretch.
Being able to tell when it is inadvisable to accept an offer is a very basic skill for managers. That’s
not to say every manager who accepts even one inadvisable offer should be punted into a volcano;
people make mistakes.
But someone who makes mistakes of judgment and then doubles down on defending their
mistakes may not be the best choice for a leadership position, regardless of the nature of the
mistake.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 8:50 am ~new~
Simon Jester:
Do you also support this standard for academics going on popular talk shows and such to discuss
race when the academics express views you agree with? Because it’s surely about as much a waste
of time there as in Hsu’s case.

Hide ↑
June 18, 2020 at 1:18 am ~new~
If the academics in question are blathering on in ways that do not further their own interests, then
yes, it is a mark against their judgment.
If they believe that participating in the talk show DOES further their interests or cause somehow,
matters are different- but in that case, the question “why did this man think this was a good idea”
becomes relevant.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 6:16 am ~new~
Which of those headlines do you think are incompatible with him being a (non-alt-right) ancap?
ETA: Or are you familiar with their content and are judging on that?
June 17, 2020 at 8:18 am ~new~
Observation:
Being alt-right is not a binary condition. It exists on a continuum. Like most political factions, the
alt-right is a cluster of allied and mutually supporting political movements.
Thus, when one looks for evidence of alt-rightyness, one is not looking for some single piece of
‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’ One is evaluating some weighted average of many things that
are said and done.
Because of this, a person evaluating for alt-rightyness may well see a series of articles, each of
which could individually be penned by someone who is not a member of the alt-right alliance, and
think “gee, taken in combination these articles suggest considerable alt-rightyness.”

Hide ↑
 Randy M says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:25 am ~new~
Of course, given “Being alt-right is not a binary condition. It exists on a continuum.”, merely
finding someone is Alt-Right doesn’t mean they are now worthless on all matters.
Hide ↑
June 18, 2020 at 1:25 am ~new~
It means that saying “is someone alt-right” is only meaningful as a proxy for saying “does someone
have an alt-rightyness score of more than X?” For purposes of the discussion, “X” is often selected
as some threshold value beyond which a person’s net contributions are deemed unlikely to be of
great value.
It’s like saying “is Fred a conspiracy theorist?”
Well, some conspiracies are more plausible than others (Julius Caesar was definitely killed by a
conspiracy, John F. Kennedy not so much).

Some conspiracies have more problematic implications than others (anti-Semitic conspiracy
theories about Jewish bankers dominating the world are, historically, pretty harmful; theories that
the Olympics are rigged probably less so).
In principle someone could be technically a conspiracy theorist while believing only in ‘conspiracies’
whose existence is common knowledge and supported by historical fact. They could, in principle,
believe only in harmless conspiracies, or only talk about them as irony or comedy or what have
you.
But in practice, such a person would not be the kind of person we’re talking about when we say
“conspiracy theorist.”
“Is alt-right” is a little more complicated than “is conspiracy theorist,” because ‘conspiracy theorist’
is a term entirely about beliefs, while ‘alt-right’ is about a combination of beliefs and actions. But
the basic analogy applies.

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 7:23 am ~new~
Bill Whittle is a bog-standard “Reagan Is God” Republican.
Ann Coulter is a bog-standard partisan Republican.
Milo Y is a social libertarian.
You’re basically doing the One Drop Rule of Alt-rightism. If you’ve ever talked to a single alt-
rightist then you’re alt-right.

June 17, 2020 at 9:10 am ~new~
Alternate explanation: As I said in a comment above, being alt-righty exists on a continuum,
because the alt-right is not some single group that issues formal membership statistics. It is a
political movement, that is to say, an allied coalition of separate groups and factions that have
interlocking interests and act to support and legitimize each other.
To further complicate the picture, the alt-right contains groups that actively desire to conceal their
affiliation with the movement!
As such, the only way to discern who is and is not part of the alt-right is by looking at which other
political factions they support and legitimize. It’s not about whether you “talked to” someone, and
it never was. It’s about what you said when you talked to someone.
Furthermore, you’re reading the lists of participants and not the headlines. The argument may well
hinge on the content implied by the headlines, not on the names.

Aragorn talked to Frodo. Aragorn got into telepathic contact with Sauron. But he said to the former
“you have my sword” and to the latter “screw you, your palantir line has been disconnected.” This
is how you know he’s one of the good guys.

Hide ↑
 Aftagley says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:24 am ~new~
I don’t know who Whittle is, but Coulter has made a career around the idea of always being to the
right of whatever issue is begin debated and Milo Y was, to my knowledge, one of the founding
poster-boys of the Alt right.
This makes me sense we’re operating under differing definitions of alt-right. Would you be willing
to define what your acid test for determining who’s alt-right is? Do they have to affirmatively claim
association?
Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 10:19 am ~new~
My understanding of the history of “alt right” is as follows.
Around 2007 Richard Spencer coined the name “Alt-right” as a rebranding of white nationalism,
attempting to distance pro-white advocacy from anti-other advocacy (nazis, KKK) in order to create
something like a white version of the NAACP or the ADL. No one cared because identity politics in
general weren’t that big of a deal back then, and definitely not white identity politics.
Over time, the name “alt right” got associated with various other non-mainstream but still right
ideologies. I first heard the term in about 2015 when applied to ne-yo reakshun types. Eventually it
grew to encompass basically everything right-wing that wasn’t GOP establishment
neoconservatism. This was the case when Milo wrote An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the
Alt-Right. As you can see it includes natural conservatives, paleocons, 4chan trolls doing it for the
lulz, and oh yeah, those white nationalists and nazis too.
It’s unfair to call Milo a “founding poster boy” for the alt right. He just wrote about them, and
would best fit into that article under “meme team.” His main political thrust is definitely not white
identarianism but “geez you social justice types are a buzzkill.”
Anyway, after the 2016 election, Spencer does his “heil Trump” thing and anybody who had
identified as “alt right” but wasn’t a WN, like Paul Joseph Watson or Mike Cernovich backpedaled so
hard they could have won the Tour de France in reverse. Suddenly “alt right” collapses back down
to being “nope, nope, nope, just them, just the white nationalist nazi guys, just them.”
So, from 2007 – 2015, “alt right” meant “white nationalist.” From 2015 – late 2016 it meant
“anybody on the right who isn’t a neocon,” and then from about December 2016 on it means
“white nationalist.” Personally I think if you’re not advocating for a white ethnostate, you’re not “alt
right,” you’re something else.

I would consider myself a paleoconservative, which would have put me on Milo’s list in 2016, but I
never identified as any kind of alt-right. I certainly wouldn’t have in 2016 because 1) I already
have a perfectly good name for my general ideology and 2) lol obvious rhetorical trap nope.
Hide ↑
 Paul Zrimsek says:

June 17, 2020 at 11:04 am ~new~
The fuzziness of the alt-right’s definition is a boon to its enemies: they can start with the narrow
meaning to establish that they’re Nazis, then switch to the broad meaning to establish that there
are enough of them to make a convincing bogey. They’re a lot like the social-justice movement
that way: the horrible ones aren’t numerous, and the numerous ones aren’t horrible.
Hide ↑
 Aftagley says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:07 am ~new~
The fuzziness is equally a boon to it’s adherents.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 11:25 am ~new~
Aftagley:
This is true of every political label, isn’t it. Is Bernie Sanders a commie? Well, no, he’s not
*technically* exactly a communist, but he does seem awfully friendly with some people who talk a
lot about Marx and inequality, and some of those people associate with folks who you rather
suspect want to bring back gulags and re-education camps, so maybe we should just paint him as
a commie. Most of us can see why this reasoning is wrong here.
Instead of deciding whether or not you can affix a particular fuzzy label to someone’s beliefs,
maybe it would make more sense to talk about his specific beliefs. Because otherwise, this just
seems like a massive exercise in guilt-by-association.

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 11:49 am ~new~
The fuzziness is equally a boon to it’s adherents.
Only the ones who are actually its adherents. Which is the very small number of Spencerite White
Nationalists.
The few of them get to conflate themselves with respectable paleoconservatives like me, but my
many enemies get to conflate me with them.

You’ve said before you’re left-aligned. But I’m pretty sure you’re not a communist. Conflating you
with tankies might be a boon to tankies, but probably doesn’t do you any good.
Hide ↑
June 18, 2020 at 1:55 am ~new~
@Conrad Honcho
So, from 2007 – 2015, “alt right” meant “white nationalist.” From 2015 – late 2016 it meant
“anybody on the right who isn’t a neocon,” and then from about December 2016 on it means “white
nationalist.” Personally I think if you’re not advocating for a white ethnostate, you’re not “alt right,”
you’re something else.
The reason the left doesn’t use “alt-right” the way you do is because the left perceives the white
nationalists as being part of an interlocking alliance of different factions and interest groups that
support and reinforce each other.
The term has been adopted to describe the alliance, which resists being named or categorized at
all- with good reason! Because if you’re relying for support on a group most people would oppose,
it is to your advantage to argue that you are not affiliated with them and are in fact totally
different.
But that doesn’t mean people outside the group are fooled, or that they won’t seize upon whatever
terminology seems appropriate to describe the phenomenon.
@Paul Zrimsek
The fuzziness of the alt-right’s definition is a boon to its enemies: they can start with the narrow
meaning to establish that they’re Nazis, then switch to the broad meaning to establish that there are
enough of them to make a convincing bogey. They’re a lot like the social-justice movement that way:
the horrible ones aren’t numerous, and the numerous ones aren’t horrible.
As @Aftagley points out, and as I point out to Conrad, this is a necessary response when a large
cluster of loosely affiliated movements start moving in parallel.
If the alt-right doesn’t want to be loosely defined, they can form a political party instead of trying
to pilot the Republican Party around like a giant mecha suit, and all the right-wing-leaning people
who DON’T join that party can start actually opposing it instead of tacitly going along with it out of
general anti-liberal solidarity. That will create the desired effect of a clear bright line between those
who are in the, oh, National Restorationalist Party or whatever, and those who are not.
But of course doing this would be a terrible idea for the alt-right tactically, because the NRP would
almost immediately end up wildly unpopular and probably associated with a bunch of hate crimes
and terrorist attacks.
So they don’t do that… but they cannot then justly complain that they are treated like a nebulous
movement when they actively resist large scale organization.
…
Another key point the left discusses when talking about the alt-right is that there are multiple
layers of “is/isn’t a Nazi.”
For every person who will join the Nazi Party in a country now there are others who essentially
agree with Nazis but don’t want to pay the social signalling cost of saying so- a sensible choice on
their part! And there are still others who in theory don’t agree with Nazis but who will, if Nazis start
taking power, find a way to just sort of hover along and be mildly supportive.
Part of the purpose of left-wing discussion of the alt-right is to try to probe the size and nature of
the groups they’d expect to happily accede in the event of a right-wing putsch, even if they do not
explicitly become that group’s foot soldiers.
@albatross11
The thing is, that exact line of reasoning is already applied to Bernie Sanders, and if we instead use
the broader label “socialist” instead of the simultaneously narrower and vaguer colloquial term
“communist,” it is in fact pretty much true that Sanders is a socialist.
Now, the part you’re clearly trying to identify as bad is the ‘guilt by association’ part: Stalin was
bad, Stalin was a socialist, therefore if Sanders can be proven to be a socialist, Sanders is also bad.
But it’s not that simple.
People who criticize the alt-right in practice can readily focus on things the alt-right is doing or has
endorsed doing. Except for the spluttering low-information imitator types, they neither want nor
need to rely primarily on guilt by association with Hitler; what is being done and spoken for NOW is
quite bad enough!

Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 18, 2020 at 3:07 am ~new~
@Simon_Jester Various alt-right-only-in-the-broad-sense people may be implicit allies of
convenience with white supremacists, but that doesn’t mean that they are white supremacists.
They are in the same direction from the status quo in the political space, but in different places.
Different ideologies in the same direction from the status quo will often use similar strategies,
“move in parallel”, and be de facto allies—but only until they succeed in moving the status quo to
the more moderates among them.
C.f. America allied with the Soviets against the Nazis. That doesn’t mean America was communist,
and as soon as they defeated the Nazis, they became rivals.
I disagree with the view that relying on the support of bad people is wrong. They supporting me is
not the same as me supporting them. In a simple model of a two-party democracy with a one-
dimensional (left-right) political space, everyone votes for the party whose ideology is the closer to
them. Both parties will stay close to the median voter: the Nash equilibrium is both parties being at
the median. (Hence the common perception that there is no real difference, and votes don’t
matter; even though, in this model, policy very much depends on the electorate.) But the parties
court and rely on the support of everyone on their side of the median, all the way from the center
to the extreme. There is nothing wrong with that.

Hide ↑
 TheMadMapmaker says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:46 am ~new~
Wait, to be clear, you think that “a minimum of due diligence” would involve looking up that this
person had once interviewed Jared Taylor, and therefore refusing to do the interview? Should have
have done that because talking to someone who talked to Jared Taylor is bad in itself? Or should
he just have done so out of fear of twitter mobs?

 Jaskologist says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:34 am ~new~
Isn’t it neat how they got you to agree that it’s invalid to speak to heretics alt-right people? That’s
a win even if you manage to save Hsu.
Just wait until you find out what they define as “alt-right.”

June 17, 2020 at 7:26 am ~new~
One can be against the death penalty in principle while also arguing the death penalty shouldn’t
apply to a specific case.
No, I don’t think anyone should be canceled for talking to…really anyone. A few years ago I
watched a conversation between Black youtuber Tommy Sotomayor and David Duke. It was
enlightening just to watch a black guy have a civil conversation with David Duke. Please don’t
cancel Tommy over that.
o Garrett says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:13 am ~new~
> or that being alt-right is bad and immoral
What are the implications of that? If true, should such a person lose their job? Should that be true
of anybody who holds a position that someone else believes is “bad and immoral”?
 keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:54 pm ~new~
Presumably it depends a lot on which job. Some people have many jobs. Notably, university
administrators are usually both professors (i.e., researchers, educators, and grant-writers) and
administrators, and usually have some amount of public relations as their job description. Turning
someone like that back into a regular professor can in some sense count as losing a job, and in
other senses really isn’t.

o gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:22 am ~new~
“Controversial” can mean more than one thing. Just because Molyneux was doing at least some of
the things for which he is currently controversial does not mean he was contemporaneously
controversial.
And if he was considered controversial at the time that does not necessarily mean “so widely
known to be not merely controversial but toxic, such that anyone giving him the time of day should
be considered cancel-worthy”.
That Hsu’s appearance seems to have been a non issue for 3 years leads some credence to the
idea that he is being judged by a shifting goal post.

 zero says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:30 am ~new~
Alternatively, it was bad for 3 years, and people only started noticing now because Steven Hsu
supported (biased/unbiased) research on police violence.

 keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:56 pm ~new~
When we say something should or shouldn’t be considered “cancel-worthy”, it’s worth being precise
about what exactly is being canceled. Is the person being demoted from Vice Provost to Senior
Dean? Or sent back to a regular faculty position? Or losing tenure?

June 17, 2020 at 3:23 pm ~new~
How about “visibly punished for expressing unpopular views.”

 AlexanderTheGrand says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:44 pm ~new~
Right, to be fair, even if nothing concrete comes of this it still would give anyone with a career in
academia pause before repeating Steve Hsu’s actions.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 9:16 am ~new~
At a slight tangent …
A good many years ago, I was invited to participate in some sort of conference in Paris. A little
before it happened a bunch of the American participants canceled in protest against the inclusion of
someone they said was a fascist.
My reaction was that the inclusion of a fascist would be a reason to go, since I have never had a
chance to talk with one. Fascism was obviously a convincing enough doctrine to persuade lots of
people, some of them intelligent, I would like to understand why, and talking to someone who
actually believed in it would help me do so, just as reading C.S. Lewis or GKC helps me understand
Christianity, another set of ideas odd to me but obviously convincing to many.
The “fascist” withdrew in counter-protest, but I managed to arrange to meet with him. He wasn’t a
fascist, but he did have an odd view of the world. He thought classical antiquity was the high point
of European civilization, Christianity what helped destroy it. His view of modern American
civilization was more or less wall to wall McDonalds. I enjoyed telling him about the SCA.
Similarly here. I was interviewed by Molyneux about ten years ago, on the subject of libertarian
parenting, which in my case meant unschooling. I have a low opinion of him, not because he is or
isn’t alt-right but because part of his thing is persuading people to break off from their families, a
generally cult-like feel. I also don’t like what I have seen of his style — he feels like a con man. But
I probably hadn’t seen most of that ten years ago.
But that’s not a reason not to talk with him.

June 17, 2020 at 9:23 am ~new~
I agree Hsu really dropped the ball on this one and I cannot begin to model what he was thinking.
My departure from the people against him is philosophically prior to that, more of a “you are trying
to fire this guy who is great at his job because he was on a bad podcast, what the heck?” If you
accept that you should sometimes fire great people for going on the wrong podcast, probably Hsu
is a reasonable person to apply that to, but I don’t.
I’m trying to think of a good analogy…imagine that in 1955, someone tried to get a professor fired
because he had been interviewed in a newspaper that had also interviewed communists. Or in
1800, a newspaper that had also interviewed atheists. This would pattern match to “these people
are censors of the worst type, screw them”. I know everything thinks the alt-right is some kind of
unique threat that deserves a totally different perspective than any other threat that has ever been
faced, but I just don’t see it – someone like Molyneux is about a hundred steps from actual
fascism, fascism is less likely to get anywhere in America than communism in 1950, and fascism
has a lower death toll than communism.

Once you accept every step of the argument for censorship except “Hsu appeared on a bad
podcast”, adding the last step means you should censor him, but I’m pretty confused by this whole
issue – I remember a time when of course you would laugh at people who said someone being on a
bad podcast was reason to fire them, if anyone was saying that it was the people who would fire
you for associating with gays or whatever, and those people were wrong not just because gays
were okay but because freedom is important and it’s none of your business.

June 17, 2020 at 9:26 am ~new~
Having Ron “Let’s Steelman Blood Libel” Unz on his podcast in 2019 gives me a second, stronger
data point and tips me at the very least strongly against buying his 2017 Molyneux appearance as
a one-off lapse in judgement.

 Randy M says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:33 am ~new~
… that is also went on a podcast with a bad guy.
I don’t think it was the quantity of podcasts that Scott was objecting to.

June 17, 2020 at 9:36 am ~new~
That’s Hsu’s podcast, not Unz’s.
Thinking Hsu “dropped the ball” on this seems to imply some inadvertence or ignorance. I don’t
buy it.
Hide ↑
 James Miller says:

June 17, 2020 at 6:11 pm ~new~
Ron Unz has some crazy beliefs, but he was also an important political player a while ago.
Hide ↑
 Scoop says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:52 am ~new~
data point and tips me at the very least strongly against buying his 2017 Molyneux appearance as a
one-off lapse in judgement.
Again, this just assumes, like many of the posts above that simply talking to someone with
objectionable views is somehow bad.
What is the argument that talking to someone with objectionable views should ruin the career of
someone who does not endorse those views?
Shouldn’t people with good views go out of their way to talk to people with bad ones, to ague them
out of their mistakes?


June 17, 2020 at 9:53 am ~new~
Again, this just assumes, like many of the posts above that simply talking to someone with
objectionable views is somehow bad.
It’s not an assumption of anything. It’s a narrow objection to the characterization of Hsu’s
Molyneux appearance as “dropping the ball.” My thoughts on debating people with objectionable
views are complex and laid out elsethread.
I assume arguendo that Scott, for whatever reasons (tactical, I’m guessing) thinks it was a bad
idea for Hsu to appear on Molyneux’s podcast in 2017, in which case it was likely a worse idea to
invite Unz onto his in 2019.

Hide ↑
 Randy M says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:05 am ~new~
@Bosch
As far as that goes, you’re probably right.
Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:08 pm ~new~
@Anonymous Bosch Based on the comment @Scott Alexander replied to, I don’t interpret Scott’s
comment as Hsu dropping the ball by appearing on Molyneux’s video, but as Hsu dropping the ball
by defending himself by saying that Molyneux wasn’t controversial in 2017.

Hide ↑
 Atlas says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:21 am ~new~
data point and tips me at the very least strongly against buying his 2017 Molyneux appearance as a
one-off lapse in judgement.
I’m (like Ron Unz) Jewish myself. Anti-Semitism of the sort that he promotes gravely concerns me.
I’ve argued with him specifically in various Internet fora over the years, and, if it’s not too
immodest to say so, I think I’ve won at least some of those arguments. I think I’m probably in at
least in the top decile of “arguing against Ron Unz’s anti-Semitism” people. (Though definitely not
in the top percentile with Jason Bayz.) In the War against Ron Unz’s Anti-Semitism, I think I
deserve at least to be mentioned in dispatches.
And I think that cancelling Dr. Hsu for having Ron on his podcast is a terrible idea. I mean, on the
specifics of the case you can read the relevant section of Hsu’s podcast cohost’s letter , but the real
issue is so much deeper than that.
Guys, we’ve already tried this, and it isn’t working. Despite attempts to censor them in various
ways—e.g. the Unz Review was just banned on Facebook—anti-Semitic websites are becoming
more popular.
The way to stop anti-Semitism is not to try to make it impossible for anyone to express, believe or
defend anti-Semitic arguments, which is probably futile in any case, but to clearly and fairly refute
them in open debate, as (the absolute legend) Nathan Cofnas is doing. Cancelling Hsu for talking to
Ron Unz doesn’t advance this worthy effort; if anything, it undermines it by allowing anti-Semites
to claim that they’re Brave Truth-Tellers who are ostracized because They don’t want you to know
what’s really going on.
Edit: To be clear, I realize and want to point out that Anonymous Bosch’s comment wasn’t
necessarily implying that the cancellation would be justified, I’m just discussing the merits of the
larger issue it raised.

 Garrett says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:33 pm ~new~
If someone with impecable credentials, say a director with the Holocaust Museum or something,
went on one of these podcast, would you be opposed? Arguably, one of their jobs is to make sure
that the holocaust is remembered and respecting, and presenting arguments and evidence to
Holocaust deniers seems to be a reasonable (if tilting-at-windmills kind of way) action to take?
Or is the problem that he’s insufficiently obviously-not-racist?
This seems to me to be a opposite-of-Nixon-goes-to-China problem. A Wizard’s First Rule kind of
issue.

June 17, 2020 at 1:57 pm ~new~
Nixon went to China because China was a huge world player whose power could no longer be
ignored. This is not the case with Holocaust denial. Nor am I convinced, as Atlas claims above, that
there is a “resurgence” in anti-Semitism, or that if one exists, it is attributable to the lack of anti-
Semites being given respectful public hearings.

There is something to be said both for engaging and ignoring bad ideas. There are many
considerations that go into both of these things, but one consideration I want to focus on here is
that the potential upside and potential downside inflect once those ideas rise and fall past a certain
threshold of popularity.
One upside to ignoring unpopular views is the idea that they should be starved of attention they
would otherwise get. But I don’t think this applies to a very popular yet horrible idea (e.g., “invade
Iraq” in 2003). There will be plenty of attention levied no matter what you say, so your refusal to
engage Iraq war proponents has limited upside as uninformed people will probably hear their
arguments anyway, so you may as well add your counter-arguments in the hopes that you can at
least convince people that your arguments are better.
However, as a bad idea is sufficiently marginalized, the adherents become more and more hard
core, while normies become less and less likely to encounter it. This limits the primary upside of
engagement (flipping believers) while multiplying the primary downside of it (undue attention).
Eventually, once it becomes marginalized to the degree of Holocaust denial, you get to the point
where the majority of its exposure is not due to the merits of the argument, but due to an excess
of general liberal sympathy towards idea diversity as a terminal goal. And this is where the “ignore”
case becomes more powerful.
I believe this is, for instance, why evolutionary biologists are less willing lately to engage in public
debates with creationists; they correctly surmise that the dwindling numbers of creationists they
convince will be outweighed by the uninformed normies who find the creationist arguments
palatable and figure that if there’s a friendly debate, it must be a subject of “legitimate
disagreement.” (Note that this toy example doesn’t require the arguments to be *good*. It’s an
inverse function with the fanaticism of the adherents. If creationist arguments are only good
enough to persuade 5% of normies, while scientists persuade 95% of them, but the idea is
sufficiently unpopular to begin with, even that small 5% slice of normies is coming from a big
enough pie that the unpopular idea still comes out ahead from having been exposed in debate.)
Hide ↑
 Atlas says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:00 pm ~new~
However, as a bad idea is sufficiently marginalized, the adherents become more and more hard core,
while normies become less and less likely to encounter it. This limits the primary upside of
engagement (flipping believers) while multiplying the primary downside of it (undue attention).
Eventually, once it becomes marginalized to the degree of Holocaust denial, you get to the point
where the majority of its exposure is not due to the merits of the argument, but due to an excess of
general liberal sympathy towards idea diversity as a terminal goal. And this is where the “ignore”
case becomes more powerful.
I’m not sure where the “ignore” case comes in here, because, if you’re criticizing engagement with
certain ideas, you’re not genuinely ignoring those ideas. If the ideas are so completely marginal
and trivial that they should be ignored, why would it matter whether someone else engages with,
or even platforms, them? Any increase in their popularity will still leave them of minuscule
importance.
By contrast, if they’re actually or potentially popular and dangerous enough to be worth
considering ways to stop their spread, debating them would seem like a much better and safer
option than ignoring them. People might not change their minds if presented with a good reason
to, but they almost definitely won’t change them if not presented with a good reason to.
I believe this is, for instance, why evolutionary biologists are less willing lately to engage in public
debates with creationists; they correctly surmise that the dwindling numbers of creationists they
convince will be outweighed by the uninformed normies who find the creationist arguments
palatable and figure that if there’s a friendly debate, it must be a subject of “legitimate
disagreement.”
What do you think about Jerry Coyne’s lengthy response from last year in Quillette to a popular
creationist essay by David Gelernter? Coyne seems like one of the most famous biologist
creationism debaters, and he quite explicitly says in the piece that Gelernter’s creationism should
be debated head-on rather than ignored.

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 5:47 pm ~new~
I’m not sure where the “ignore” case comes in here, because, if you’re criticizing engagement with
certain ideas, you’re not genuinely ignoring those ideas. If the ideas are so completely marginal and
trivial that they should be ignored, why would it matter whether someone else engages with, or even
platforms, them? Any increase in their popularity will still leave them of minuscule importance.
I think you’re taking “ignore” too literally. My post mentions Holocaust denial but it assumes it is a
bad thing and does not contain a heavily cited section proving the Holocaust happened, and neither
do most of the other posts I’ve seen criticizing Hsu for hosting Unz. This is what I mean. Most
people know Holocaust denial is a thing. But they’re not awash in the minutiae of whether this or
that chemical could’ve really been deadly, they probably can’t even name any primary documents,
etc. (To a Holocaust denier [or an extreme libertarian] this probably sounds dystopian. But I think
it’s legitimate to want some things, like the Earth being round, to become common informational
ground and not the subject of constant debate, or nothing will ever get done.)
Conversely you can rarely escape debate about the Iraq war now and certainly couldn’t in 2003. So
you might as well have a patter about poor planning, civil war, ISIS blowback, and Iranian regional
dominance.
What do you think about Jerry Coyne’s lengthy response from last year in Quillette to a popular
creationist essay by David Gelernter? Coyne seems like one of the most famous biologist creationism
debaters, and he quite explicitly says in the piece that Gelernter’s creationism should be debated
head-on rather than ignored.
I’m about to commute so if it’s lengthy all I can say is my prior is disagreement (and I know many
biologists agree) but I’ll give it a hearing.

Hide ↑
 Guy in TN says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:34 am ~new~
@Scott Alexander
He’s not associating with these people in order to counter their views. He isn’t conducting
adversarial debates. He is amplifying their voices, and using his scientific credentials to bolster
their white nationalist world views.
Like, isn’t it weird that Hsu’s main thing is talking about how important race/intelligence is, and he
keeps either being invited on racist’s podcasts, or invites racists onto his? Haha what a weird
coincidence! What an unlucky break for this neutral, objective researcher!
We all know the Kolmogorov option is a thing, and all we know people have been using it in various
forms for years (“hide your power level!”-4chan). Knowing that there is a coordinated effort to
lie/hide political beliefs, we have no obligation to accept that framework of “he can’t be a racist,
because he’s never said he’s a racist”.
You say you cannot model Hsu in this instance? I can model him easily, it’s quite transparent:
Study racial differences in a nominally “objective” way, trot out your “neutral” studies whenever
they can be used to advance your political causes, and be chummy with far-right figures,
amplifying their voices and bolstering their arguments with your facts, but never coming out to say
whether you agree with them, or outright stating what your beliefs are. Be all coy, all the time.
This is a model of a high-ranking professor who was trying to advance racial supremacy, and not
get fired for doing so. This is Hsu.

And yes, I think the state of Michigan should not be giving money to someone who is conducting
research that is used to promote racial supremacy. Academic freedom has its limits. The state has
not just the right, but the moral obligation to ensure that its limited funding for research and
education is going to people who are making the world a better place, not a worse one.
 zero says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:44 am ~new~
This feels like the same type of argument you’d use to prove that Bernie Sanders is a Communist,
and I reject it on the same basis.

 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:58 am ~new~
1) This is how purity spirals happen. You don’t really look like a witch, and I’ve never actually
caught you engaging in witchcraft, but you sit too close to witches and don’t openly condemn them
loudly enough, so off to the gallows with you. Lather, rinse, repeat until we’re stacking rocks on
people who refuse to participate in the farce.
2) The state of Michigan gives tons of money to professors and administrators who openly
advocate for directly engaging in racial discrimination, which would be a facial violation of the state
constitution and the democratic will of the populace that funds them. Doesn’t it have a moral
obligation to cancel them?

 Guy in TN says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:09 am ~new~
@gbdub
1. “Purity spiral” is a phrase that means nothing to me. We can do good things, without also
slipping into doing bad things. Not every action spirals into infinity.
2.
The state of Michigan gives tons of money to professors and administrators who openly advocate for
directly engaging in racial discrimination, which would be a facial violation of the state constitution
and the democratic will of the populace that funds them. Doesn’t it have a moral obligation to cancel
them?
Depends on the details. I do not consider the constitution to be sacrosanct, nor necessarily
representative of the people’s democratic will.

Hide ↑
 zero says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:14 am ~new~
Allow me to phrase it in a different manner, then. What measures do you propose to ensure that
you only fire the right people?
Hide ↑
 Guy in TN says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:36 am ~new~
@zero
What measures do you propose to ensure that you only fire the right people?
The same standards the university might apply when deciding to hire the best person: You review
their background, their research interests, the ideas they amplify, and the people they associate
with. The committee in charge thinks about whether they would be a net-positive or net-negative
for the university, and makes a decision.
While you cannot “ensure” that this process only hires the best professors, it is superior process
than hiring people randomly.

Likewise, I cannot ensure that the concept of “fire a professor for bad behavior” will be used
appropriately 100% of the time, but I’m fine with that. Nothing in life can be ensured, but that
doesn’t mean it must instead “spiral”.

Hide ↑
 cuke says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:28 pm ~new~
“Nothing in life can be ensured, but that doesn’t mean it must instead ‘spiral’.”
Strikes me as a concise definition of how anxiety can distort thinking. Lovely turn of phrase.
Hide ↑
 Scoop says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:02 am ~new~
This is a model of a high-ranking professor who was trying to advance racial supremacy, and not
get fired for doing so. This is Hsu.
Words have meaning. If you can produce something he’s said or written that argues for racial
supremacy — not somewhat shifted bell curve distributions in various traits but racial supremacy —
produce it.
Making such accusations against anyone without being able to support them is libelous.

June 17, 2020 at 12:53 pm ~new~
I’d like to see the Bad Words, too.

Hide ↑
 Guy in TN says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:11 pm ~new~
It’s pretty silly to be asking for the “bad words” receipts in response to a post where I specifically
said there wouldn’t be any.

Study racial differences in a nominally “objective” way, trot out your “neutral” studies whenever
they can be used to advance your political causes, be chummy with far-right figures, amplifying
their voices and bolstering their arguments with your facts, but never coming out to say
whether you agree with them, or outright stating what your beliefs are.
Hide ↑
 Scoop says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:57 pm ~new~
It’s pretty silly to be asking for the “bad words” receipts in response to a post where I specifically said
there wouldn’t be any…
…amplifying their voices and bolstering their arguments with your facts, but never coming out to
say whether you agree with them, or outright stating what your beliefs are.
Then you don’t get to say what his beliefs are for him, unless you’re Professor X and you can read
his mind.
Absence of evidence isn’t actually evidence of how good the evil-doers are at covering up their
tracks.
“I just feel in my bones that he’s a racial supremacist. I hear the dog whistles,” is no different than
“I just feel it in my bones that he’s a pedophile. I see the way he looks at kids.”
It’s an utterly unsubstantiated statement that is enormously detrimental to his life and career,
based upon your hunch. It’s not OK.

Hide ↑
 Guy in TN says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:20 pm ~new~
There are two simultaneous rhetorical currents, in beautiful contradiction:
1. Never look for dog whistles. You can only consider the beliefs of someone if they say so
explicitly. Because we can’t read minds, it doesn’t matter if someone dedicates their career to a
field with direct benefit for racists, gets invited to have friendly chats on racist’s podcasts, and uses
this opportunity not to debate them, but to present scientific findings in a way that serves to
bolster the racist’s agenda. Oops! How could they make such a silly mistake?
2. Hide your power level. Be like Kolmogorov, never state your actual beliefs, and maintain
plausible deniability. Advance your cause, of course, but only do so under the facade of neutrality
to avoid punishment.
It seems that “2” is directed for the internal audience, while “1” is directed towards the outsiders
who start to see through it.

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 2:45 pm ~new~
@Guy in TN: 1) Zealously looking for “dog whistles” mean you’re going to inflict punishment on
false positives at some rate above “zero, ever.” 2) If they stop inflicting punishment, people they
disagree with will stop hiding.
If you’d made that argument against certain other demographics than scientists, the Left would call
it victim-blaming.
Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:42 pm ~new~
@Guy in TN I don’t think the two are contradictory. If people who hold particular views can’t say
them out loud, especially in a way that people who don’t already hold those views can understand,
then even if someone does hold those views, they have a hard time spreading them, so it should
matter little if they hold them.

When it comes to politicians: a politician may be a racist, and dog-whistle about it, in a way that’s
not apparent to most people. Those politicians, if elected, then go on to never actually implement
any racially discriminatory measure: that would make it obvious that they are racist, and it’s not
even on the table anyway. Now, if their racism doesn’t show either in their speech or in their
policies, why should I care about it?

Hide ↑
 Dan L says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:04 pm ~new~
@ 10240:
Those politicians, if elected, then go on to never actually implement any racially discriminatory
measure: that would make it obvious that they are racist, and it’s not even on the table anyway.
This assumes that all policies that instrumentally fulfill particular views will be clearly attributable
to those politicians’ beliefs. How do you deal with pretextual defenses? Are you expecting disparate
impact analyses to be a popular tool to connect the dots?

Hide ↑
 silver_swift says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:03 am ~new~
We all know the Kolmogorov option is a thing, and all we know people have been using it in various
forms for years
You realize that if Hsu is Kolmogorov in this instance, that makes you Stalin?
June 17, 2020 at 11:44 am ~new~
Like, isn’t it weird that Hsu’s main thing is talking about how important race/intelligence is, and he
keeps either being invited on racist’s podcasts, or invites racists onto his?
Not at all weird in a world where you have to toe the academic line and pretend your research
doesn’t have specific implications OR associate with (alleged) racists.

 10240 says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:04 pm ~new~
The state has not just the right, but the moral obligation to ensure that its limited funding for
research and education is going to people who are making the world a better place, not a worse one.
What makes the world a better place is a politically contentious question; in a democracy, the
electorate should decide what approach to take on morally contentious issues, not the government.
Your idea involves a strange feedback loop: the people elect the government, but in turn the
government should attempt to shape the political opinions of the electorate (at least by helping
efforts to propagate certain ideas but opposing others).

Assuming the government engages in this sort of propaganda according to the wishes of the
electorate itself, this just leads to conformism, and stabilizes the currently accepted views: the
majority will want efforts to propagate majority views, and hinder ideas contrary to mainstream
views. If the majority is right, it will stay right; if it’s wrong, it will stay wrong.
If the people making the decisions on how to shape the electorate are not really accountable to the
electorate, this just reverses the democratic norm that the electorate is supposed to decide and the
government should follow, not the other way around.

 Guy in TN says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:55 pm ~new~
@10240
Assuming the government engages in this sort of propaganda according to the wishes of the
electorate itself, this just leads to conformism, and stabilizes the currently accepted views: the
majority will want efforts to propagate majority views, and hinder ideas contrary to mainstream
views. If the majority is right, it will stay right; if it’s wrong, it will stay wrong.
All education (public schools, private schools, even homeschooling) can be thought of as operating
in the same manner: To propagandize the currently accepted views of the teacher to the student.
All teaching is a form of “conformism” in this way, “stabilizing” what is known into the next
generation. While it is true that teachers like to say they are merely teaching how to think, the
reality is that they are also invariably teaching what to think, as uncomfortable as that is to admit.
I don’t see how one could object to this type of conformism without also implicating the very
concept of education, public or otherwise.
For the question of research funding, the impossibility of neutrality becomes even more
inescapable. How is the government supposed to determine what gets funded and what doesn’t, in
a non-ideological way? While the political non-neutrality of race/intelligence studies is fairly clear,
even broad-scale funding decisions such “direct money to study medicine, instead of studying
environmental issues” have an underlying political value expression. Heck, even funding education
at all is a political value expression.

Hide ↑
 Guy in TN says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:20 pm ~new~
@10240
To be clear, I’m not saying that the government should adopt an official stance on every issue, or
even most issues. It is sometimes a good idea to fund competing research ideas and multiple
opposing viewpoints.
But since resources are limited, a government should not fund people advancing every possible
viewpoint. It should not direct equal funding to Creationist Geology Departments as it does Non-
Creationist Geology Departments. At some point, an idea does so much more harm than good (e.g.
homeopathy) that the government should not direct any funding towards it at all. My undergrad
had a “Homeland Security” degree, where presumably you learned how to defend the United States
from being attacked. But notably, there was no corresponding opposing degree where you learned
how to attack the United States. It is not unreasonable for a university to conclude that race/IQ
studies should fall in the same sort of category, particularly if the negative real-world implications
of such research is becoming nakedly apparent.
Yes, this is political. Yes, this is censorship. Yes, this is conformism. And yes, this gives the very
idea of liberal pluralism a squeaky wheel. But I’d rather face such truths with clear eyes and
honesty, rather than pretend its anything else.

Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:59 pm ~new~
All education (public schools, private schools, even homeschooling) can be thought of as operating in
the same manner: To propagandize the currently accepted views of the teacher to the student.
@Guy in TN , I find that OK as long as the education sticks to the facts. I oppose efforts to use
education for the purpose of shaping young people’s ideological or moral views, either by directly
teaching those views, or by selecting what facts to teach based on how those will shape their
ideology.
While the political non-neutrality of race/intelligence studies is fairly clear, even broad-scale
funding decisions such “direct money to study medicine, instead of studying environmental issues”
have an underlying political value expression.
What to studies to fund is a political decision, and IMO it’s OK for the elected government to decide
it. For instance, it may decide to direct funding to the study of medicine, because it will lead to
better medical care; the government (and through it, indirectly, the electorate) can decide how to
weigh this benefit against other uses of that money. What is not OK in my opinion is to make the
decision based on how it will change the political views of the electorate.
Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 6:15 pm ~new~
Here is my model of Hsu: “Using genetics to increase human intelligence is going to be of massive
importance to humanity, so I’m going to study the genetics of human intelligence. It’s really
annoying that issues of race poison discussions of IQ.” I hope I don’t get cancelled for having had
Hsu on my podcast.
 sharper13 says:
June 18, 2020 at 12:31 am ~new~
@Guy in TN,
Perhaps I can put the logic of this situation in a way which would be easier for you to follow:
Hsu associated with racists (was on a racist’s podcast), therefore he must be a racist and should be
fired. Scott Alexander supported Hsu in this post on his blog, so therefore he must also be a racist
and fired. Guy in TN comments on and hangs out all the time on the racist Scott Alexander’s blog, so
therefore he must be a racist and fired.
Are you perhaps beginning to see yet how that whole standard of anyone who associates with
racists must be considered a racist and fired could spiral out of control?
 leadbelly says:
June 18, 2020 at 2:31 am ~new~
I haven’t listened, but surely the content of the podcasts are important? If he is interviewing the (I
hope we can all agree) morally reprehensible Unz, and does so in a chummy and non-
confrontational way, isn’t that evidence he is sympathetic to his views?

 keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:58 pm ~new~
Are people trying to get him fired from his professor job, or just getting him demoted from a vice
provost position to regular old tenured faculty? That makes a huge difference to my evaluation of
what’s going on, and it’s not clear from the main post. (And surely, some protestors are asking for
each option.)
 smilerz says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:07 pm ~new~
Are we discounting the possibility that a person deeply interested a deeply technical subject was
simply super excited to talk about his work with anyone that would listen?
It’s not super unusual for really smart people to fail to grasp how others might view a situation.
June 17, 2020 at 11:56 am ~new~

or that being alt-right is bad and immoral.
Can you give a definition of alt-right for which that claim is plausible? My impression is that the
term covers a fair range of views.

42. Deiseach says:

June 17, 2020 at 3:28 am ~new~
Staying away from CW topics because who needs to spike their blood pressure to apoplexy levels,
machine translation is still lagging behind humans a little.
Using Google Translate, I tried getting a translation of an Irish term for a new housing estate.
Google’s best guess was that this translated to “Towels” 😀
On the presumption that not even an Irish housing developer is quite that quirky, I tried online
dictionaries and God bless ’em, after a bit of “um, I don’t think so” and recommendations about
secondary words, I got “The Furrows” which I think is much more likely.
June 17, 2020 at 3:32 am ~new~

Using Google Translate, I tried getting a translation of an Irish term for a new housing estate.
Google’s best guess was that this translated to “Towels”
Sounds more like tents than a permanent building, but OK?
How goodly are thy towels, O Jacobite, and thy other towels, O Éire!

June 17, 2020 at 6:50 am ~new~
Now there’s a frood who knows where his housing estate is.
43. Bugmaster says:

June 17, 2020 at 1:12 am ~new~
I hate to say “I told you so”, but: whatever happened to Kolmogorov Complicity ? AFAICT, the
Kolmogorov Complicity doctrine recommends that you stay away from controversial topics
altogether. You could maybe work on them in secret; but in public, you should toe the party line,
and reassure Stalin that Lysenkoism is totally fine. So, why does it not apply in this case ?
o silver_swift says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:28 am ~new~
From the post on Kolmogorov Complicity:

[The Kolmogorov Option] is nothing more than a band-aid on the problems that even a harmless
orthodoxy will cause – but if there’s no way to get rid of the orthodoxy, the band-aid is better than
nothing.
My guess is that Scott doesn’t think we’re quite at the point where we need to give up on having
an actual, honest, public debate yet. The US in 2020 isn’t exactly Stalin era Soviet Union levels of
bad.
 TomMustang says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:18 am ~new~
Dude Scott does follow Kolmogorov Complicity. That was literally the warning shot that he was
about to adopt the Kolmogorov option without being explicit about it; I thought that was obvious
out the time.
Sure enough, Scott became way less Heterodox, retracted his opinions about IQ. He even authored
an anti-IQ article in VOX.
You might remember that this was at the time where he was being doxed, his “you’re still crying
wolf” was being passed around conservative circles, he was musing if wrong-talk would eventually
get medical licenses revoked. Scott was having all kinds of problems at this time, I think he said
something along the lines of, his biggest regret being that in early SSC days, he didn’t separate his
real-life identity from that of this blog’s author; he wished no one knew this was his because it was
ruining his life. At one point he even threatened to take down the blog. This is at the same time IQ
was banned on the SSC subreddit so as not to connect it Scott anymore, the entire culture war was
moved from the SSC subreddit to theMotte, again not to tarnish Scott’s name.
This all came after “you’re still crying wolf”, which now has an edited message on top telling Trump
trolls not to read it.
Scott did take the Kolmogorov option seriously.
“Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightening” wasn’t a thought experiment.
“Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightening” was Scott telling us that he was adopting
the Kolmogorov option.
I thought this was obvious. He was explicit as he could be, would you have him say “hey guys, let’s
all pretend Stalin [the analogy to some specifically undefined subjects in the Kolmogorov post] is
cool”.
“Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightening” was Scott telling us that he was adopting
the Kolmogorov option. And he clearly has. Defending a friend without getting into any details is
hardly going back to his IQ days. He went from “IQ is real obviously real and and that becomes
clearer with every study, fight me” to “no one knows anything about IQ, how can we know, it’s too
hard, I don’t wanna talk about it.
Kolmogorov Complicity
June 17, 2020 at 7:10 am ~new~
I thought that was obvious out the time.
It also seemed pretty obvious to me.

June 17, 2020 at 7:26 am ~new~
This perspective makes that post so much more grim.
I really hope this is some sort of Turkin cycle low point or something and 20 years from now we’ll
have recovered from our collective insanity. I don’t think I would be willing to stay here if it keeps
getting worse, decade-after-decade.

June 17, 2020 at 7:33 am ~new~
[On second thought, this was a bad idea]

 Scott Alexander says:

June 17, 2020 at 10:02 am ~new~
No comment on this in general, but I think you’re being unfair about the article in Vox. This was
originally a post on my blog, which I wrote because I thought it was true and important. Vox
approached me and said they thought it would be a good article for them, and I said okay. I
continue to believe it’s true and important, and I tried to frame it in a way that wouldn’t flatter the
biases of IQ denialists.
 Bugmaster says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:31 pm ~new~
To be fair though, you’d say the same exact thing if your article was merely an insincere attempt at
maintaining your Kolmogorov Complicity. To be clear, I’m not pointing any accusatory fingers at
you personally, but merely pointing out that Kolmogorov Complicity does have hidden costs.
Hide ↑
 Bugmaster says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:32 pm ~new~
Right, but my point is, one cannot be halfway complicit. Stalin doesn’t care about nuance; he will
send you to Siberia unless you do exactly what he says, and part of that is condemning the exact
same “enemies of the people” that he tells you to condemn.

 10240 says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:10 pm ~new~
Scott doesn’t say everything he thinks, but he has written things (I won’t link to it, but it’s later
than the Kolmogorov Complicity post) that were pretty clearly weren’t written as if he were trying
to be maximally uncontroversial on these issues.

Defending a friend without getting into any details is hardly going back to his IQ days.
Not sure what he said back then, but I’d say saying that IQ is meaningful and heritable (with no
mention of race) is less controversial than defending someone talking about the genetics of race
(and not in the most politically correct way).

o textor says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:30 am ~new~
I think scandals of this sort are exactly why our Scott, unlike the other Scott, has expressed
skepticism in the long-term tolerability of the Kolmogorov Option, in the very piece you’re probably
thinking of. Honestly it’s so good, I’d rather just quote my favorite part:
But the biggest threat is to epistemology. The idea that everything in the world fits together, that all
knowledge is worth having and should be pursued to the bitter end, that if you tell one lie the truth is
forever after your enemy – all of this is incompatible with even as stupid a mistruth as switching
around thunder and lightning. People trying to make sense of the world will smash their head
against the glaring inconsistency where the speed of light must be calculated one way in
thunderstorms and another way everywhere else. Try to start a truth-seeking community, and some
well-meaning idiot will ask “Hey, if we’re about pursuing truth, maybe one fun place to pursue truth
would be this whole lightning thing that has everyone all worked up, what does everybody think
about this?” They will do this in perfect innocence, because they don’t know that everyone else has
already thought about it and agreed to pretend it’s true. And you can’t just tell them that, because
then you’re admitting you don’t really think it’s true. And why should they even believe you if you tell
them? Would you present your evidence? Would you dare?
The Kolmogorov option is only costless when it’s common knowledge that the orthodoxies are lies,
that everyone knows the orthodoxies are lies, that everyone knows everyone knows the orthodoxies
are lies, etc. But this is never common knowledge – that’s what it means to say the orthodoxies are
still orthodox. Kolmogorov’s curse is to watch slowly from his bubble as everyone less savvy than he
is gets destroyed. The smartest and most honest will be destroyed first. Then any institution that
reliably produces intellect or honesty. Then any philosophy that allows such institutions. It will all be
totally pointless, done for the sake of something as stupid as lightning preceding thunder. But it will
happen anyway. Then he and all the other savvy people can try to pick up the pieces as best they can,
mourn their comrades, and watch the same thing happen all over again in the next generation.
Greg Cochran, too, has expressed the same doubt, except much more bluntly and pertinent to
Hsu’s topic, and less eloquently.


June 17, 2020 at 5:43 am ~new~
Greg Cochran, too, has expressed the same doubt, except much more bluntly and pertinent to Hsu’s
topic
I actually think this part of Cochran’s post is unfair:
We don’t have to worry about the minefield being empty: people like Horgan know damn well what
they expect research to find – if they thought there was nothing there, they wouldn’t worry about it.
There are two levels of this question:
1. What is the correct description of reality?
2. What is the research going to find?
It’s fair to say that Horgan knows exactly what he expects the research to find, and that it
corresponds to Cochran’s view of reality. But we can’t generalize from that to the idea that
Horgan’s view of reality coincides with Cochran’s! If I hear about a study into growth mindset,
intercessory prayer, or racism, I explicitly expect that the “research” will come to conclusions that
conflict with reality. I don’t see why I shouldn’t believe that John Horgan can take the same view I
do of “the research”, despite having an opposite view of reality.

 textor says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:05 am ~new~
I’m not sure what your point is here. Clearly Cochran doesn’t imply Horgan’s general model of
reality to be identical to his own in all ways, as it is not. But there’s only so much plausible
deniability before your professed belief starts to look like a belief in belief for any reasonable
observer. Sure, some fields are deeply corrupt (research into Pygmalion effect has produced many
positive results yet see what Gwern has to say about it); still, you are expected to be able to
criticize them on the merits of the argument being made, even if it’s repetitive. And if you have
compelling arguments at the ready, which amount to general condemnation of all research yielding
a certain output, for every combination of sample, procedures and math used – it appears that you
use, internally, an explanatory model for the data, which largely coincides with one predicting
these outputs using factor you are renouncing as if it were real.
This ought to be enough to make Cochran’s case.


June 17, 2020 at 6:14 am ~new~
My point is that Cochran signs off by implying that Horgan agrees with Cochran’s view of the
underlying reality, and I don’t think that was a fair implication.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 9:28 am ~new~
The analogy a few comments upstream from here, comparing the issue to research done on the
power of intercessory prayer seems relevant.
The kind of person who says, with a serious face, “I want to do research on the power of prayer” in
the twenty-first century, is the kind of researcher who is, shall we say, a risk factor in the
replication crisis.
I expect that if a researcher is doing studies on the power of prayer, there is a very high probability
that they are funded by Insert Evangelical University Here, or are otherwise predisposed to come
back with a report saying “oh yes prayer is powerful.”
They MIGHT be unbiased. They MIGHT be honest and stalwart and true enough to report a null
result if they find one. But that’s not the way to bet.
We tell people to stop funding Dr. Rhine to study parapsychology, or Dr. Wakefield to study
vaccines. But not because we expect those men to find something that we want suppressed. We
tell them to do it because we expect them to find nothing, massage the data until they can claim to
find something, and then for people to spend the next twenty years parroting the bullshit-study.
People have been arguing a scientific basis for racism for about the past 200 years. The
justifications for this have shifted radically on various occasions, persisting through multiple
paradigm shifts in the medical and biological sciences. It is enough to make some people who are
quite committed to rationality begin to suspect motivated reasoning.
And once you suspect motivated reasoning, it becomes appealing to oppose studies of a topic from
those whom you expect to persist in the motivated reasoning.

Hide ↑
 textor says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:27 am ~new~
@Simon_Jester
People have been arguing a scientific basis for racism for about the past 200 years. The justifications
for this have shifted radically on various occasions, persisting through multiple paradigm shifts in
the medical and biological sciences.
I’ve heard this claim made so often, and substantiated so invariably poorly, I’ve come to loathe the
very idea of engaging.
Whatever the “scientific basis for racism” may be (generally a notion I find suspect, since racism is
a policy/normative belief, and science does not deal in oughts), Jensen’s 1969 paper on differences
in scholastic achievement has stood the test of time; and its numerous cancellations all had failed,
only to be revived with the miracle of inexhaustible state funding and make-believe social science,
with massaged data and plainly nonsensical arguments, and without a single precommitment to a
given model’s prediction.

It is enough to make some people who are quite committed to rationality begin to suspect motivated
reasoning.
Indeed.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 12:21 pm ~new~
It is enough to make some people who are quite committed to rationality begin to suspect motivated
reasoning.
Indeed.
The clearest case isn’t race, it’s sex. For anyone who believes in Darwinian evolution, the default
assumption is that there will be male/female differences, mental as well as female, since we are
optimized for reproductive success and the difference between male and female is their role in
reproduction. So anyone who maintains that there are no differences without clear evidence in
support is pretty clearly guilty of motivated reasoning.

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 1:09 pm ~new~
The kind of person who says, with a serious face, “we are only going to fire the bad people
pursuing bad subjects,” is not the person you trust when they are saying it less than a day after
Nathan Robinson over in Current Affairs says that a guy getting fired shouldn’t have made his bad
tweet because he was tweeting “bad research,” and it was bad research because “it argues that
violence fuels negative media coverage which fuels a political backlash that helps Republicans.”
It doesn’t matter if the research is true or false. It doesn’t matter if it’s well studied. They even say
“it might be true empirically.” But it states things that might help Republicans, so it’s bad.
And this is also less than a day after that same progressive reporter was kicked out of his
Progressivephiles group for, in the words of their leaders, making a “racist tweet,” and “instead of
choosing to learn and grow from his mistake” he, somehow, “encouraged harassment that led to
death threats.” Stop resisting arrest!
This group does not give a shit, at all, about false positives. It’s conflict theory, and if some people
get ground up in the gears, well, they should have known better. Why didn’t you just do what the
cop said, man?
They MIGHT be after very particular problems with saying incorrect things. They MIGHT be honest
and stalwart and true enough to admit when they are wrong. But that’s not the way to bet. If this
is how little they care about someone who has long been on-board with them, there is no hope for
any due process for you.
The goal is to stop these people from succeeding at their awful goals without ruining our own souls
and without destroying the institutions they are threatening to blow up. But doing the right thing
isn’t always easy.

Hide ↑
June 18, 2020 at 2:37 am ~new~
@David Friedman
Indeed.
The clearest case isn’t race, it’s sex. For anyone who believes in Darwinian evolution, the default
assumption is that there will be male/female differences, mental as well as female, since we are
optimized for reproductive success and the difference between male and female is their role in
reproduction. So anyone who maintains that there are no differences without clear evidence in
support is pretty clearly guilty of motivated reasoning.
The default assumption is slightly complicated by the fact that evolution tends to be parsimonious:
it doesn’t select for or against traits that don’t impact evolutionary fitness.
It is logical to expect male/female differences in areas that would strongly impact reproductive
fitness for Stone Age hunter-gatherers. This includes areas such as physical anatomy, and instincts
regarding sex, pair-bonding, and childrearing.
Behold, we observe fairly marked differences in anatomy, and you can make a pretty good claim
for there being sex-linked differences in mating strategies and instincts. One must add a large
caveat that evolution often solves problems in ways we would not naively expect, but the
differences can still show up.
The complication, though, is that so many of the traits we now consider important to success in
society exist ‘at right angles’ to what a successful hunter-gatherer needs. There is no reason why,
among hunter-gatherers, the men need to be inherently much more or less skillful with language,
calculus, organizing physical belongings, or navigating a social hierarchy than the women. Both
sexes would seem to have roughly equal need to do those things (lots, none, some, lots), so you’d
expect the similarities to outweigh the differences.
Such things MIGHT exhibit sex-linked differences, but such differences would tend to be a purely
coincidental side effect of something else. These effects would, again, operate in less predictable
ways, and would tend to be a lot weaker.
The conviction that women are bad at (for example) calculus lasted much longer, and expressed
itself much more forcefully, than you would expect if it was motivated by a dry belief in sex-linked
differences caused by evolution.
And that is the part where advocates of “women getting a chance to do [cool thing men get to do]”
start to flip over from mistake theory to conflict theory.
I don’t blame them; there’s a lot of experience out there suggesting that at least some men have
been waging conflict-theoretic opposition to women in positions of power and respect for a long
time. Publicly announcing that you’ve noticed this trend and are about to start hitting back is
reasonable, if the underlying cause is itself compatible with justice.

@Edward Scizorhands
Tying into what I said to Dr. Friedman, the key point when examining a person operating under
conflict theory for signs of bad faith is one of entrenchment.
Does the degree to which they are pursuing a conflict-theoretic contest for power over institutions
align with reasonable goals, and with the scope of their stated goals? If the answers are “no, and
no,” then one starts to have good cause to suspect hostile motives.
Sometimes the correct answer is to fight back. The professor in danger of losing their job due to
unsupported allegations by a lone student who flunked their class two semesters ago may well
deserve your help.
Sometimes the correct answer is to get out of the way. The geocentrist professor probably doesn’t
deserve your help staying in the astronomy department; there is no advancement of the cause of
intellectual freedom likely to come from resisting his ‘arrest.’

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 8:12 am ~new~
For that matter, have you seen Other Scott’s blog lately? He’s gone full-on Stockholm Syndrome,
and making great shows of how much he hates outgroup in order to appease the same group that
abused and traumatized him as a child. Kolmogorov complicity has just meant trying to flaunt his
own credentials for hating badthinkers more.

 viVI_IViv says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:48 am ~new~
I like him but does suffers from a severe case of TDS.
E.g. a woke university in a woke state removes standardized testing as an admission criterion, at
the insistence of its cancellor who is a Democrat woman who served as Secretary of Homeland
Security under Obama. And apparently it’s Trump’s fault.
A pandemic from China ravages mostly Democrat areas, in particular a city with a Democrat mayor
married to a black lesbian (?) activist in a Democrat state. And apparently it’s Trump’s fault.
Go figure…
June 17, 2020 at 9:35 am ~new~
Do you believe that the preferred Republican policies for addressing the coronavirus pandemic are
likely to prove effective in preventing Republican areas from being ravaged by coronavirus over the
long haul?
Do you believe that President Trump’s control of the executive branch does not confer on him a
measure of responsibility for the federal government’s response to the epidemic, or lack thereof?
Personally, I think the argument “big man, big desk, big responsibility” works fairly well at times
like this.
Hide ↑
 viVI_IViv says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:58 am ~new~
long haul?
I can’t predict the future but so far they aren’t doing that bad. Yes, there are confounders of
population density and so on, but given the available evidence you can’t reasonably blame
Republicans for a problem that mostly affects Democrat areas (and Democrat demographics).
To some extent yes, but has he done much worse than leaders of comparable nations? It would be
unfair to hold Trump to a higher standard.

Personally, I think the argument “big man, big desk, big responsibility” works fairly well at times
like this.
Scapegoating isn’t exactly the most rational approach to credit and resposibility assignment.
Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 10:54 am ~new~
long haul?
I think everyone’s going to get ravaged by it in the long haul, but the questions to ask are 1) can
we prevent overwhelming the medical system and 2) can we prevent the economy from being
obliterated. I think both Republican and Democratic governors* have erred to far on the side of
health rather than economy, but much more so the Democrats. I expect Republican and
Democratic states won’t be much different on the health front (adjusted for population density),
but Republican states will do much better economically.

Not really. The President has little power to do anything about this. He only has quarantine powers
at the borders of the country and between states. With regards to use of these powers I’d give him
an A- for shutting down travel from China early, and a touch late from Europe.
He does also have the bully pulpit, and I’ll give him a…B on this I guess. I thought he was right at
the beginning to tell everybody to wash their hands, hit the elevator button with their elbows,
generally calm down, etc. Beyond that, it’s impossible to judge his ability to assuage public fears in
the face of the relentlessly dishonest and motivated media. If Trump says “calm” they’ll say
“Trump is wrong, panic!” and if Trump says “panic” they’ll say “Trump is wrong, fearmongering!”
So on that front I blame the whole general mish-mash of political polarization and the abysmal
state of the media.
Then there’s the CDC and the FDA, and I blame their failures on mission creep and general
institutional rot. That’s a bigger problem than Trump or anyone can solve, so I don’t particularly
blame him for that, either.
* Excepting New York, which was a screw-up of a completely different nature and I won’t lump into
a general trend.
Hide ↑
 leadbelly says:
June 18, 2020 at 2:43 am ~new~
What about his suggesting people use disinfectant internally? Or that exposure to UV, again,
maybe internally, might be a cure? And then his claiming it was sarcasm? What marks would you
give him for those.

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 9:18 am ~new~
The other Scott over-reacts to serious things. The things deserve a reaction, but he doesn’t know
how to be anything besides all-on or all-off.

 viVI_IViv says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:24 am ~new~
He doesn’t just overreact, he barks up the wrong tree.

Hide ↑
o aristides says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:37 am ~new~
I’m sure when Scott wrote the Kolmogorov Complicity he was advising people like Hsu to hide their
beliefs. But just because someone didn’t follow your advice, doesn’t mean you now let the pack of
wolves devour him. You can still stand for Academic Freedom when the wolves start circling, even
if you prefer this wasn’t necessary.

o James Miller says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:46 am ~new~
In my case the analogy is: comrade Stalin has a lot of power, but not yet enough to kill people like
me. Years ago I insulted him, so I’m sure if he becomes General Secretary I’m dead. Consequently,
I don’t have much to lose by openly opposing his rise, and indeed if I didn’t at this stage he would
consider me a soft target and try to liquidate me earlier than he otherwise would.
 Garrett says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:16 am ~new~
Wouldn’t the best approach in this case be to find and kill comrade Stalin before he can kill you?
After all, you’re facing murder in the near future, but the more time Stalin has to gain power the
harder it will be to take such actions, even though it would also mean your murder is more
predictable.

June 17, 2020 at 8:06 am ~new~
I think this would push my analogy past its breaking point since I’m in fact at risk for being fired,
not killed.
June 17, 2020 at 9:13 am ~new~
I continue to recommend it as a good idea, but that doesn’t mean I won’t take even the tiniest
action to help people who stray from it.
If you are an atheist in Saudi Arabia I strongly recommend you keep your head down and don’t
make waves, but if somebody does make waves and Saudi Arabia imprisons them, I can still be
against this and link a petition to free them.
If you’re asking whether posting this link is a departure from the policy for me, yes, a little, but I
feel like I owe Steve for all the support he’s given SSC over the years.
44. chalst says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:53 am ~new~
Hsu defends himself mostly on the grounds of academic freedom (the exception: he does devote
one sentence to noting MSU’s budget went up 40% since he took office), but I think, since the
campaign is to relieve him of a particular administrative duty and not have him be fired from his
tenured position as physics professor (from the linked GEU Twitter thread “The GEU recognizes that
academic freedom entitles a scholar to express ideas without professional disadvantage”), this is a
rather weak defence.

o Aapje says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:50 am ~new~
Tenure is merely a minimum defense against attacks on academic freedom, in the same way that a
city wall made it much harder for attackers in medieval times to conquer the city. However, the
city actually needed food and materials from indefensible rural regions to survive, long term. This
is why sieges worked and why walls didn’t ensure that people couldn’t be conquered/killed, but
merely made it very costly to do so.
Similarly, tenure really only prevents unsustained attacks on certain points of view from being able
to totally cleanse the universities, quickly. It is insufficient to ensure protection from sustained
attacks and even temporary attacks still damage academic freedom.
The Graduate Employees Union explicitly argues that as VP, Hsu funded research aimed at a
certain political agenda and should be stopped from doing so, although I’m not sure how they can
distinguish bad research with a political agenda from research that is done according to high
academic standards (or at least, as high as other research), but gives results they disagree with.
The goal seems to be to prevent this research that supposedly fits a bad political agenda to be
funded, which surely is an attack on academic freedom, as it is a demand that research is only
allowed if it has outcomes that fit certain beliefs. Scientists may keep their tenure, but if they lose
their funding, they are unable to do many types of research, just like how a besieged medieval city
can no longer keep its factories running or craftsman working, without supplies from rural regions.
since the campaign is to relieve him of a particular administrative duty
You make it sound like they want to stop him from signing work sheets.
In reality, these are the duties they want to take away from him:
This office assists faculty in a number of ways:
– It administers the Intramural Research Grants Program, which supports projects that are judged
to be competitive for external funding or are otherwise expected to advance the scholarly
enterprise of the university, and the Strategic Partnership Grants program, which provides larger
grants for projects deemed to be strategically significant to the university.
– It provides support and oversight for major centers, analytical facilities, animal care facilities,
safety and environmental services, and other functions that enhance research activities.
– Working with the Office of the Provost, it administers certain funds made available from the MSU
Foundation to provide startup support for new faculty, matching for external grants, and seed
monies for new projects that have the potential to attract funds from outside sponsors. (Faculty
seeking matching funds are advised to initiate discussions first with their department chairperson
and college dean.)

– It helps identify opportunities for external support of research and creative activities; manages
participation in programs that limit the proposals an institution may submit; provides guidance and
support for meeting requirements of the Michigan Life Sciences Corridor program; offers instruction
on preparing and submitting proposals.
– It maintains a website with information about conducting research at Michigan State and links to
other sources of information about research activity.
Also part of the Office of the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies are the Office of
Research Ethics and Standards, which promotes the ethical conduct of research and assures
compliance with federal, state, and university laws and policies, and the Office of Intellectual
Property, which protects faculty inventions, represents the university in licensing those inventions,
manages MSU’s portfolio of patents and licenses, and administers patent policy.
Administrating grants, doing oversight and setting research standards is immensely powerful.
Social justice advocates regularly demand that all these things are done according to their political
views.
PS. Your website is down.

June 17, 2020 at 9:41 am ~new~
On the other hand, the realization that these administrative positions are immensely powerful
means that if the position belongs to someone who is seen as ‘taking the side’ of a viewpoint that
merits challenges… One can expect a push to drive the challenged viewpoint’s advocates out of
senior positions.
I would be very unhappy to learn that a powerful administrative position that handled grants for
medicine or climate science had fallen into the hands of a homeopath or a global warming denialist,
respectively. If I were to advocate that a global warming denialist be removed from a position of
responsibility in climate research, perhaps I would be “demanding that this be done according to
my political views…”
But I would also be, simultaneously, quite sincere in my belief that a scientist who spends much of
time trying to refute global warming in 2020 is not the caliber of person I want in charge of doing
climate science that I expect to accomplish anything.


June 17, 2020 at 9:47 am ~new~
Once you admit it’s conflict theory, it all becomes clear.

June 17, 2020 at 9:47 am ~new~
Simon_Jester:
I propose that you apply the above reasoning to:
a. Someone in a position of power who openly discusses the findings of psychometrics, including
where they raise uncomfortable issues w.r.t. race.
b. Someone in a position of power who openly discusses the findings of critical race theory,
including where they raise uncomfortable issues w.r.t. race.
The way it looks to me, psychometrics is on *enormously* more solid ground than critical race
theory, but to a first approximation nobody gets cancelled for (b) but many people get cancelled
for (a).
 zero says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:54 am ~new~
Then the question becomes “What constitutes a global warming denialist?”

June 18, 2020 at 2:06 am ~new~
@Edward Scizorhands
The problem is, resolutely remaining in mistake theory paradigm can be very disadvantageous
when dealing with certain kinds of challenge.

This is particularly true when the opposition has credible ulterior motives for ignoring attempts to
point out their mistakes, or when they have a good track record of successfully appealing to a
mistake-theorist’s values in an attempt to manipulate them.
@albatross11
I propose that you apply the above reasoning to:
a. Someone in a position of power who openly discusses the findings of psychometrics, including
b. Someone in a position of power who openly discusses the findings of critical race theory, including
The way it looks to me, psychometrics is on *enormously* more solid ground than critical race
theory, but to a first approximation nobody gets cancelled for (b) but many people get cancelled for
(a).
Since you are using a certain amount of elliptical phrasing here to avoid saying precisely what you
think gets (a)-type people in trouble, I cannot comment.
I mean, I could interpret standardized test scores as a kind of psychometric parameter, and the
observed achievement gap as evidence of the test scores being strongly correlated with a ton of
confounders that raise uncomfortable questions with respect to race such as “really, are we STILL
doing this fuck-over-brown-people nonsense in 2020?” By the literal wording of your comment
they’d be an example.
But I’m pretty sure they’re not the people you have in mind. That is, I think that you are
attempting to covertly say that Group A is correct and unfairly persecuted, without directly coming
out to say that Group A is correct and unfairly persecuted, with the implication that it’s “obvious”
that Group A is correct and that’s why the Dread Ess Jay Double Yous are suppressing their
findings.
@zero
Yes- but this isn’t the kind of question that forces us to go all existentialist or whatever and say
“but what is global warming really?” We know what it is, we know there are people who want to act
on it and people who don’t. Simple enough.

o Briefling says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:56 am ~new~
The rule being promoted is, “if you acknowledge controversial viewpoints at any time in your
career, you will never hold a meaningful administrative post, and may occasionally be shamed and
censured publicly.” Promulgating that rule is obviously going to have a chilling effect on academic
freedom.
Although I acknowledge that, for certain values of “controversial,” the rule is definitely already in
place, and maybe also desirable.
But the broad point is that this really is an academic freedom issue.
 keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:04 pm ~new~
Most academics have zero interest in holding “a meaningful administrative post”. They see it as a
place for washed up former researchers to go when they can’t do research any more.
I suppose it chills the research of people who want to move into administration. But moving into
administration chills their research as well. (Just go look at the CV of any provost or university
president who works in an academic field that you know about – very likely they did some really
important work a while back, but haven’t done much in the past decade or so.)
June 17, 2020 at 3:59 pm ~new~
@keaswaran
Most academics have zero interest in holding “a meaningful administrative post”. They see it as a
place for washed up former researchers to go when they can’t do research any more.
I suppose it chills the research of people who want to move into administration. But moving into
administration chills their research as well.
Perhaps that’s true, but can you elaborate on the relevance? What I’m getting from your exchange
with Briefling is:
1) Academics that do well at both research and administration are fairly rare.
2) Hsu may be an example of 1). At least, you don’t seem to dispute this.
and now I’m confused about your comment. Are you saying something along the lines of:
3) We shouldn’t be too concerned about compromising Hsu’s academic freedom, since such cases
will be rare.
Or does your comment imply something else?
Edited: added more of your comment.

 Lambert says:
June 18, 2020 at 4:16 am ~new~
So if you support what Hsu’s taking about you should have him cancelled so he can go and do
more research?
o mfm32 says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:26 am ~new~
That’s an extremely limited scope and definition for academic freedom. It might be the minimum
legally defensible definition (or not), but it falls far short of the goals and spirit of academic
freedom. Universities are supposed to encourage and promote the expression and debate of ideas,
not merely permit it. Administrative duties are an important part of an academics role. Making
them contingent on orthodoxy is a great way to discourage exactly the free expression of ideas
that sits at the core of academic freedom.
You’ll note that the campaign is extremely thin on allegations that relate to Hsu’s performance in
his administrative role. As far as I can tell, there are only two points it makes that could possibly
be construed to relate to his administrative duties, and both are weak on their merits as well as
their relevance. The first, a COI disclosure failure, was corrected within a month of the article’s
publication. The second appears to be no more than a decision to fund a single scholar whose
conclusions on racial bias in police shootings the campaigners disagree with.
The campaign doesn’t even try very hard to make the case that they are against Hsu for his
performance of his administrative duties. They state their complaint with him very clearly: his
“views [are] unacceptable.” That is in my mind an attack squarely against academic freedom.
45. Reasoner says:

June 17, 2020 at 12:25 am ~new~
Signal boosting this recent thread on “cancellation insurance” as a permanent way of solving the
unwarranted cancellations problem.
I felt like I did a decent job of answering objections last time around, but here is another pitch for
the idea.
The government’s monopoly on the use of force regulates the use of force as a punishment. As as
a society, this has allowed us to move beyond blood feuds. The invention of law happened so long
ago so as to be practically mythological (for example, consider Moses and the Ten Commandments,
the Code of Hammurabi, or whatever). We’ve forgotten details of how it happened, but it was a
massive breakthrough.
Public shaming is a punishment just like any other. In the social media era, public shaming has
become way easier. But unlike the use of force for punishment, the use of public shaming is totally
unregulated. That’s why the current era feels so lawless. It’s possible we will only move beyond
this when we find some way to regulate the use of public shaming the way we regulate the use of
force.
In the United States, the First Amendment means that our government isn’t well-equipped to
regulate the use of public shaming. That’s why we need private firms to do it. Cue David
Friedman’s ideas about anarcho-capitalism and legal systems different from ours. The public
shaming crisis is not just a crisis, it’s an opportunity for legal innovation.
However, although legal innovation would be great, it isn’t strictly required. A vast improvement on
the public shaming status quo would be to achieve the basics of what our use-of-force legal system
does. Identify some trusted people who are fairly likely to be disinterested parties. Assign them the
job of spending several weeks acquiring expertise on the topic of “is this person actually a racist
asshole”. Have them announce their verdict.
What concrete form could this take? How do you turn it into a business? I think there is room for
innovation there too, but here is one proposal. Post job ads online and hire a diverse range of
seemingly fair-minded individuals. Sell subscription services to people who are scared of public
shaming and want to preserve their livelihood (i.e. everyone). If someone is getting shamed, they
report it to the cancellation insurance firm. The cancellation insurance firm assembles the strongest
case for and against them and gets the judge team to come up with an overall verdict. (The judge
team could also be hired on a part-time basis, jury style. In some cases the team could be, for
example, 100% African Americans in order to achieve greater moral authority / have some
baseline familiarity with the subject matter. But, and this is crucial, they should be “randomly”
selected from the population, not self-selected the way pitchfork-wielding Twitter users are. It’s
been said many times Twitter is not real life, this corp does arbitrage on that fact. Another crucial
part is they are doing this as their job, hence they have a longer attention span than a little blue
bird, and feel a greater obligation to carefully consider both sides of the story even if reading
things they disagree with is painful and not something they’d normally do while goofing off online.)
If the judgement team delivers a guilty verdict, the insurance firm stays silent–“Sorry, we can’t
help”. However, if the judgement team thinks the person is innocent, or that the person is guilty
but not guilty enough to get cancelled (the mob’s punishment does not fit the crime), they could:
* Get their publication arm to publicize the case for the person’s innocence. Cancellation insurance
is highly synergistic with a fair-minded, widely respected journalism business. We’re killing two
birds with one stone here. Everyone knows newspapers are dying. Everyone knows newspapers
operate with shitty incentives. Cancellation insurance represents a method for creating a new and
highly lucrative journalism business that does not suffer from shitty incentives.
* Hire people to find social media discussion of the person subject to cancellation and patiently
refute false claims that are being made about them / provide a more balanced perspective.
* Straight up give the person a cash payment to help tide them over until they find their next job.
Maybe publicize the fact and the size of the cash payment so the mob feels silly. (Or maybe not, if
you’re concerned with the mob bankrupting the cancellation insurance firm. However, I think the
mob’s throughput of cancellations will remain more or less steady since it’s limited by other
factors.)
o Bugmaster says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:56 am ~new~
This sounds like a good idea in theory, that is plagued by the same type of problems as libertopian
private security companies:
* What prevents your organization from being taken over by biased activists ? So far, no other
organization had turned out to be immune. You say that your quasi-judges will be randomly
selected from the population, but you have no power to do that; all you can do is randomly select
from those who apply to work for you.
* Who is in charge of this organization ? Who makes the hiring and firing decisions ? Is it you ?
Why should I trust you ?
* What prevents your organization from going full mercenary, and offering its services in the
burgeoning cancellation-for-hire business ?
* What prevents your organization from being cancelled ?
* You say you will “patiently refute claims”, but no one reads patient refutations, so what’s your
next move ? Directly giving money to people is not a good idea, but how will you able to afford
lifetime support for someone who was cancelled and can no longer get a job ?
* Let’s say I hired your firm, paid my insurance for many years, then got cancelled. Are you going
to honor my claim, or are you going to do your best to weasel out of it, like every other insurance
company ? If you did try to get me un-cancelled, and failed, can I sue you ?
 Juanita del Valle says:

June 17, 2020 at 5:08 am ~new~
Some of these complaints aren’t unique to the business model proposed: the issue of trust, for
example, is core to all insurance companies, and is mostly solved by reputation or proxies for
reputation (the existence of insurance markets in other spaces proves this is at least possible).
Similarly, on the question of how you’ll afford premiums for a “lifetime of unemployment”:
permanent disability insurance does exist, and covers conditions that are likely much more
detrimental to lifetime earnings than a one-off job loss and reputation hit.
 Reasoner says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:44 pm ~new~
What prevents your organization from being taken over by biased activists ? So far, no other
organization had turned out to be immune.
Look at the bottom line. Starbucks, for example, allows itself to be taken over because its clientele
will stop buying Starbucks coffee if it believes Starbucks is not “woke”. On the other hand, if
cancellation insurance customers believe that the firm is being taken over, they will take their
business elsewhere.
Know one org type that hasn’t been taken over? Banks. Know why? Because a core part of a bank’s
business model is trustworthy management of customer money. As a bank depositor, if I think
there’s a cultural revolution brewing amongst bank management, I’ll take my money elsewhere
thank you very much.

You say that your quasi-judges will be randomly selected from the population, but you have no
power to do that; all you can do is randomly select from those who apply to work for you.
Job ads don’t need to be clearly marked as “work for cancellation insurance corp”. That allows for a
more random, less self-selected fraction of the population. Additionally, you can apply various
adjustments to make your sample more representative of the population. For example, choose a
subset of your applicants such that that subset answers opinion surveys with a similar distribution
to the population at large.
Or don’t bother with the whole random sample thing and just select people that you think are
fairminded. It’s up to you. Your organization will grow a reputation over time based on its actions.
There is a competitive marketplace of cancellation insurance firms here, so there’s room for diverse
approaches.
Who is in charge of this organization ? Who makes the hiring and firing decisions ? Is it you ? Why
should I trust you ?
The ideal CEO would be a sensible Black cultural commentator such as Coleman Hughes. Tell all
your trustworthy BIPOC friends about this opportunity to make billions of dollars while ending the
culture war and greatly upgrading the effectiveness of American institutions. This is a once in a
lifetime opportunity. You’ll be the lawgiving Moses of the 21st century. (Tongue only slightly in
cheek.)
What prevents your organization from going full mercenary, and offering its services in the
burgeoning cancellation-for-hire business ?
What prevents us from going into the fast food business?
Again, everyone will cancel their subscriptions if they don’t trust the organization to adjudicate in a
trustworthy way. We’d sooner go into fast food than become a mercenary cancellation-for-hire biz
for that reason. No one wants to buy cancellation insurance from a cancellation-for-hire firm.
What prevents your organization from being cancelled ?
Getting cancelled is free PR for us.
You say you will “patiently refute claims”, but no one reads patient refutations, so what’s your next
move ?
They do if the patient refutations are direct replies to their tweets.
With regard to the monetary payout, you select an insurance policy corresponding to the payout
you want to receive. For example, if you want 6 months of living expenses in response to being
cancelled, that will be a cheaper premium than a lifetime’s worth of living expenses. We hire
actuaries to do some math and figure out our expected payouts and charge premiums high enough
to ensure the business remains profitable. Just like any other insurance firm.
Let’s say I hired your firm, paid my insurance for many years, then got cancelled. Are you going to
honor my claim, or are you going to do your best to weasel out of it, like every other insurance
company ? If you did try to get me un-cancelled, and failed, can I sue you ?
Being cancelled puts the spotlight on you. Many people are suddenly paying attention to what
you’re doing and saying. If you take this opportunity to drag your insurance firm through the mud
because they aren’t paying out, that will be bad for your insurance firm’s reputation. Cancellation
insurance subscribers will see that your insurance firm did not stick by you when they really should
have. They’ll switch to a different insurance firm.
On the flip side, giving you a payout can act as great marketing for us. Everyone seeing you
unfairly cancelled, and us paying out for it, will be like “Wow, Bugmaster’s cancellation insurance is
saving their butt. Let me get some of that insurance myself.”
But we’d try to set up the contract in such a way that you can sue us as well.
o Outlaw_Thirds says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:49 am ~new~
I think the idea of an insurance agency makes sense, but does not need an arbitration process; if
you get cancelled, it pays out (unless they can find that you deliberately got yourself cancelled.)
Rather than try to exonerate you after the fact, they could adjust your insurance rate based on
your risk of being cancelled.

 Reasoner says:
June 18, 2020 at 3:57 am ~new~
I agree that exoneration is not necessary for the idea to work.
But I submit that for the average person, their reputation is very valuable, and exoneration from a
trusted source with a platform is something they would pay good money for. Warren Buffet once
said
We can afford to lose money – even a lot of money. But we can’t afford to lose reputation – even a
shred of reputation.
And
Lose money for the firm, and I will be understanding. Lose a shred of reputation for the firm, and I
will be ruthless.
The fundamental problem with the modern attention economy is we have a situation where
priceless reputations are being destroyed for a few bucks in ad revenue. I think there is a massive
amount of value to capture here.

46. Peter Gerdes says:
June 16, 2020 at 11:42 pm ~new~
Thank you. Hsu is my personal hero and this is important.

47. hnau says:

June 16, 2020 at 9:05 pm ~new~
My sympathies to Prof. Hsu, and kudos for being (as far as I can tell) in fact a very upstanding
person.
That being said: “Here’s a detailed, civil explanation of why I’m not guilty” is not tactically or
strategically the right response when the Mob comes for you.
The right response is “lol, f*** you.”
It’s tactically a better response because the Mob doesn’t operate rationally. It does what it thinks it
can get away with (and then some), not what’s reasonable. And it smells fear.
Defend yourself? You just validated the Mob’s narrative and, by reacting, told it that you fear the
consequences of attack. It will fisk your defense, find something arguable or objectionable, and
keep going.
Apologize? You just gave the Mob a taste of blood and, by reacting, told it that you fear the
consequences of attack. It will dismiss your apology, escalate its demands, and keep going.
Laugh in its face? You just told the Mob “bring it on”, sending a signal that you aren’t afraid. It will
back down and go looking for a softer target.

It’s strategically a better response because as long as people keep coughing up polite, deferential
responses to the Mob’s demands, it can spin “lol, f*** you” responses as admissions of guilt. No
matter how defensible your position is, by deigning to defend it you give ground to the Mob and
make the world less safe for people without such an ironclad defense.
And make no mistake: no matter what your defense is, no matter how unpopular your views are,
the demands the Mob makes are fundamentally invalid. An exercise of social-cultural force is never
a valid response to an honestly held belief. It is intellectual terrorism, and there are reasons we
don’t negotiate with terrorists. The Mob has no right.
Argument does not get bullet. Conversely, I submit, bullet does not get argument.
o zero says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:10 pm ~new~
The Mob is not the only other actor in this scenario. There is also Michigan State University, who
controls the ultimate outcome. It is unclear to me
what the optimal strategy to satisfy them would be.

 hnau says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:20 pm ~new~
Fair point, but I don’t see it affecting the calculus much. Michigan State University presumably
knew the facts that Hsu cited in his defense already. And there have been many cases of
cancellation where the employer knew the facts and apparently didn’t care. The main factor in the
employer’s decision seems to be the amount of pressure the Mob brings to bear. My claim is that
the pressure will tend to be less if one adopts the defiant strategy.

June 16, 2020 at 9:42 pm ~new~
I think having a petition full of very famous people supporting you is helpful, and the defense
seems to be important in getting the petition (even if it’s only a ritualistic step, as I suspect it was
for most of the people involved)

 The Big Red Scary says:

June 17, 2020 at 5:22 am ~new~
Never forget– liberals get the bullet too.
For what it’s worth, I have relevant credentials (tenure at a respectable institution, in a not
irrelevant subject) and am familiar enough with Hsu to be willing to sign my name in his defense.
However, the letter is written not so much as a defense of Hsu as a defense of an adulterated form
of classical liberalism, emphasizing among other things diversity in hiring, which in most cases is a
euphemism for affirmative action on behalf of one group and therefore effectively discrimination
against another group. In short, I can’t in good conscience sign the letter as formulated, and think
that some subtler form of “lol, fuck you” would be a more appropriate response.
Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:14 pm ~new~
@The Big Red Scary , I don’t really see the petition as taking a position on affirmative action. It
uses the word ‘diversity’ and at a different point ‘inclusion’, but it’s pretty diplomatic about whether
it means racial diversity/inclusion or diversity of thought. IMO it’s a good strategy for it to be
diplomatic, and suggest that free inquiry doesn’t contradict diversity/inclusion (whatever we take
those to mean), without really taking sides on anything other than academic freedom. I oppose
affirmative action but I don’t see this as a good reason not to sign the petition. (I don’t know what
version you’ve seen; it was a publicly editable document for a while.)

Hide ↑
 alawisgreen says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:44 pm ~new~
Michigan State University presumably knew the facts that Hsu cited in his defense already.
You’re assuming that just because one person in MSU’s administration knows something, then all
people at MSU know it. Imagine you’re the Dean of MSU. MSU has 2600 faculty. You might know
Hsu by reputation, and interacted with him a few times. You haven’t read his blog. Hypothetically,
if he posts racist things on it regularly, you wouldn’t know unless someone complains.
As the Dean, your options are to 1) fire him immediately 2) start an investigation or 3) make a
public statement affirming diversity.

If Hsu made a statement saying, “lol f*** you,” which option do you feel the Dean would lean
toward?
 keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:08 pm ~new~
On a minor terminological note – Hsu is the “Senior Vice-President for Research and Innovation”,
and thus likely outranks all the Deans at MSU. So in this case, likely anyone in the administration
knows him better than your post suggests.
In any case, “lol f*** you” is perhaps an appropriate public reaction, even as much more sober
documents and defenses are prepared privately for the administrators that will likely read them.
(They should be phrased in a way that doesn’t make them awful if they leak, but they shouldn’t be
written primarily for the mob.)

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 8:15 am ~new~
Building up a giant petition to save Hsu might create an expectation that the next guy who we try
to cancel needs to come up with a giant petition or else get canceled.

 Matt M says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:33 am ~new~
Yeah… even if this results in Hsu not getting canceled, a statement like “we were going to fire him,
but then all these relatively high status people spoke out in his defense, so now we won’t” strikes
me as a hollow victory, at best…

 Spookykou says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:47 pm ~new~
What about, spoke out against firing him for this, expressing that a lot of high status people
disagree with this category of thing.

Hide ↑
o INH5 says:
June 16, 2020 at 10:51 pm ~new~
That only works if either you have an independent source of income or your employer is willing to
back you up on it. And if it’s the latter case and that support ever falters, well, just ask Milo
Yiannopoulos. A university isn’t going to be anywhere near as lenient as Breitbart was.

So I think that a defensive posture is the right move here, even though I have some quibbles with
some of his arguments that I don’t want to get into here.

o Marvin says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:30 am ~new~
>That being said: “Here’s a detailed, civil explanation of why I’m not guilty” is not tactically or
strategically the right response when the Mob comes for you.
I agree that only trying to parry the accusations or basing your core argument on it is a bad plan,
but I think Hsu sort of gets this, even though the response in the blog post primarily respond to
the Twitter posts. He finishes with “Academics and Scientists must not submit to mob rule.”, which
he probably should have started with. One of the letters in his support does this better, it starts
with an argument that the MSU president should not fire staff due to a Twitter mob, independent of
whether their accusations have merit.

I’m not sure how literal I should take the defense you are proposing, but I think seriously arguing
why the mob has no right is a better idea than to laugh at them because you believe it has no
right.
o aristides says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:49 am ~new~
Everyone already considers “lol, f u” to be an admission of guilt. If that was his response, the
university wouldn’t want to defend him even a little, and his only recourse would be a law suit,
which means hoping for a sympathy jury. A rational defense has the potential to get your employer
in your side, and you can still sue in the end anyways. I do agree an apology is the worst option. It
is explicitly an admission of guilt, and the only times I’ve heard it working is when your a
democratic nominee for a position of power.

June 17, 2020 at 7:47 am ~new~
There’s no reasoning with a mob, and probably apologies make things worse. Hsu needs to reason
with his employer, and if he thinks apologizing will help him keep his job, it may be the prudent
thing to do. In which case, that sucks, but he’s got to think about how to take care of himself and
his family first.
From reading a lot of what he’s written, one thing I am fairly sure of is that he has not been
philosophically disarmed. That’s happened to a lot of liberals/progressives who were canceled by a
Twitter mob–you could see the people basically cycling through all the defenses against the
charges of {racism/sexism/white fragility/whatever} and being unable to apply any, as they

personally had accepted the idea that such defenses were invalid when offered by a white person,
and probably had cheered on previous mobbings. Tearfully apologizing while trying to explain
somehow that “this isn’t me” without using any of the forbidden defenses, stuff like that.
Hsu can be forced to shut up, to apologize, maybe even forced to recant, but he’s no more going to
start believing the self-criticisms he’s been told to state than would someone like Steven Pinker or
Sam Harris or Razib Khan.

48. Le Maistre Chat says:

June 16, 2020 at 8:56 pm ~new~
Hey Civilization players: I haven’t bought a new entry since Civ 4. I’m curious if the game’s
“message”, for lack of a better term, has changed?
What I’m gesturing toward:
I had Civ 2 back in, uh, I guess fifth grade. Cities were made up of individual population units
(initially 10,000 people, abstracted bigger as you get closer to the present). They could be Happy,
Content, or Angry (you later got the options to turn units of people into Scientists, Tax Collectors
or Elvis Impersonators if there was enough surplus food). If Angry people became a majority, the
city would riot, producing nothing for the state. There was also “Corruption”, where based on how
far a city is from the capital, the more stuff produced by the tiles is inaccessible to the state (very
Seeing Like a State, but it’s treated as total waste instead of free people making their own stuff
with it). Researching better governments has benefits like reducing Corruption, down to zero.
Depending on your form of government, you could rush what a city was currently building by
working people to death or with cash. You end up choosing either Democracy for peace or
Fundamentalism for war. Under Democracy or the more primitive Republic, there’s a Senate that
can force the player to do something they don’t want to do (make peace). Every government
building (which inexplicably includes things like Marketplaces) in the Realm takes money from your
treasury each turn. Settlers or Engineers could “terraform” land tiles. You have a Research &
Development program from 4000 BC until victory or defeat. There were two victory conditions:
conquer the word or launch a starship to Alpha Centauri. The way productivity worked, it was
always a better idea to conquer other civilizations’ cities rather than trade with them: more living
space under your government led to a faster spaceship victory.
I then bought Civ 3 (this must have been somewhere in Middle School age) and years later, Civ 4.
By Civ 4, some of the mechanics of 2/3 had been changed as “unfun” and new complexity was
added. You always had total access to everything produced by land tiles in use. Tiles never change
except by chopping down trees or global warming (desertification). A city would never go into civil
disorder: as cities got too big, they would start getting Angry heads, units of people who refused to
work. This was actually a resource, because the optimized way to play was to slave rush a building
or unit in every city every ten turns, improving the city while simultaneously making it “not too
crowded”. Upkeep costs were by city rather than by government building. There was never an
internal government faction forcing you to make peace. On that note, you don’t have a simple
government like “Democracy”: you now choose one government policy from each of five columns
like the stereotypical Chinese menu. Want both Universal Suffrage and Slavery? Go for it. You want
Free Religion or a Pacifist state religion with that?
There were now more victory types: Domination, where you controlled at least 67% of the world’s
land and population. Diplomatic, where you control half the world’s population and get one AI
civilization to help democratically elect you ruler of the world. And the one that required the least
violence: Cultural, where you research the technologies that unlock the most Culture-producing
stuff and then make your people become Luddites who produce Culture (culture, science, and taxes
compete for the same resource) until three cities reach Legendary Culture.
Your civilization also had two special abilities (introduced in Civ 3), which depending on your
leader. This led to the devs guessing what two adjectives from a buffet best described a historical
person like Abraham Lincoln, and their guess would have totalizing effects on the entire American
population (e.g. “this guy was Philosophical” = your cities produce 100% more Great People).
So what are things like now? I’m looking for deep implications about politics and economics, not
changes like “tiles are now hexes and units can’t be stacked.”
o Randy M says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:04 pm ~new~
Shamus Young is doing a series about the gameplay of the Civilization series at his blog. It doesn’t
directly answer your question, but it may be of interest nonetheless.

o C_B says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:18 pm ~new~
Civ 5:
Cities produce resources (the primary ones being food, money, and production) based on both the
buildings/upgrades contained in the city itself, and the quality of the surrounding land (e.g.,
grasslands produce more food than deserts, building a mine on a hill makes it generate more
production, tiles adjacent to a river produce more gold because trade, etc.).
Cities have population units, representing [arbitrary number] people each. Those population units
can be used to work tiles (you always get the resources from your city tile, but you only get
resources from surrounding tiles if someone is working them), or they can become “specialists”
(scientists, merchants, artists, etc.), providing less resources but more of some harder-to-get
thing, like science or culture.
Population units consume food, and a city will eventually hit an equilibrium where it can’t grow any
bigger without increasing its food production. Military units and some buildings have gold upkeep.
Aside from those sinks, all resource income is always fully available to the state.
Happiness is civilization-wide. Having more cities and bigger cities decreases happiness, while
various things like building colosseums and theaters increases happiness. Recently conquered or
occupied cities produce extra unhappiness. If your civilization is a little unhappy, your city growth
gets a big penalty. If your civilization is very unhappy, you get a whole bunch of penalties; you
really, really don’t want to be very unhappy. By default, it’s difficult to make a large empire without
happiness problems, but there are various options in the game that loosen the restrictions,
allowing you to sprawl if you invest in it.
You customize your civilization by selecting “Social policies” (civilization-wide values) with culture
points, which are things like “Tradition” which makes you better at generating culture and building
wonders, “Honor” which makes you better at fighting, or “Exploration” which makes you better at
naval stuff and trade. In the late game, you pick one of three special policies called “Ideologies,”
which are Freedom (capitalism), Order (communism), and Autocracy (fascism). Ideologies have
some special between-civilization mechanics, like producing extra unhappiness for you if a
civilization with a mismatched ideology from yours has much higher culture generation than you
do.
Different civilizations have built-in bonuses. Sometimes these are special units or buildings, other
times civ-wide bonuses. For instance, the English get Longbowmen (longer range than
Crossbowmen other civs get), Ships of the Line (better than equivalent boats for other civs), and
global bonus naval movement all game long.
You can win the game via Domination (conquering everybody), Science (building a fancy
spaceship), Culture (making everybody drink your Coca Cola and wear your band T-shirts),
Diplomacy (getting the UN to elect you World Leader, usually by bribing all the city states), or Time
(having more points than anyone else at the end of the game).
o silver_swift says:
June 16, 2020 at 11:30 pm ~new~
CIV 6:
Like Civ 5 Cities have population units, representing [arbitrary number] people each. Those
population units can be used to work tiles as normal and you still get the bonus from the cities own
tile for free.
A big difference from 5 is the addition of districts, large city upgrades that take up an entire tile
and allow cities to specialize more. Districts are limited both directly by the size of your city and
indirectly by the fact that you lose the resources from the tile. Population send to work on a district
instead turns into specialists, (provided you have build the correct buildings in that district).
Amenities, Housing, loyalty and religion are now all tracked per city, rather than civilization wide.
Amenities work similarly to happiness in older versions of civilization. Cities need an amount of
amenities based on its size. Luxury resources add one amenity to four or six (depending on the
resource) of your cities. Beyond that, you can add more amenities through the usual wonders,
buildings and other bonuses. Having too few amenities reduces population growth and production
and having dramatically too few amenities makes rebels spawn near the city and attack it (this
typically doesn’t happen as a city stops growing before it reaches that point).
Housing represents the capacity of a city to grow. Cities cannot grow larger than their housing
capacity + 5 and growth slows down dramatically as you near this cap. The initial amount of
housing for a city depends on whether the city is located next to fresh water, a coast or not near a
water source. On top of that you get a small bonus for farms and other early developments, but as
your city grows and you progress through the tech tree, you will eventually need to build
neighborhood districts in order to house your entire population.
Loyalty represents your control over your cities, it is based mostly on happiness and pressure.
Happiness is based on amenities and pressure is generated by other nearby cities. Nearby domestic
cities (cities controlled by you) generate positive loyalty while nearby foreign cities generate
negative loyalty. Larger cities generate more pressure. If loyalty drops too low, the city will secede
from your empire, becoming a free city, that might eventually join another nearby civilization (or,
in practice more likely, immediately get conquered by said civilization).
Governments work differently than before. You select a government type, which gives you specific
bonuses and a number of economic, military and diplomatic policy slots. These policy slots can be
filled with any matching policies that you’ve researched and there are no restrictions on what
policies can be combined with what government (there is no slavery policy, but you can be a
democracy with serfdom).

June 17, 2020 at 12:56 am ~new~
(there is no slavery policy, but you can be a democracy with serfdom).
Oh oops, no you can’t. Serfdom becomes obsolete when you unlock Public Works, which is a
prerequisite for democracy. Also, there are in fact a few policies that are unique to a particular
government.
You can, however, have Corporate Libertarianism as your government with Collectivism* and Music
Censorship policies.
Would be fun to figure out what is the most ridiculous government that is theoretically possible.
* Collectivism does require that your civilization is currently going through a Dark Age, (as opposed
to Collectivization, which requires a communist government) so you could argue that this
represents the society breaking down and paying only lip service to Libertarianism.
 Dack says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:36 am ~new~
Would be fun to figure out what is the most ridiculous government that is theoretically possible.
My current game of Civ6 has New Deal Fascism.

June 17, 2020 at 3:28 am ~new~
How is that ridiculous? I ran Universal Suffrage Free Speech Slavery Free Market Pacifism in most
of my Civ4 games.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 3:36 am ~new~
You actually can’t do that any more with the latest expansion (Gathering Storm).
New Deal is one of the few policies that is now restricted to a specific government type (Democracy
in this case).
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 4:55 am ~new~
@Le Maistre Chat
The only two of those that are directly incompatible are slavery and universal suffrage and even
then I can kind of imagine a society that functions that way, you just need to find a reason why the
free-all-the-slaves party isn’t getting enough votes to change things.
There are any number of ways in which democratic societies end up ignoring the voice of a
significant portion of their people, even if everyone has the right to vote. Maybe voter turnout
among slaves is particularly low, maybe ending slavery is so far out of the overton window that
nobody wants to run it as a platform (and the slaves can’t vote for one of their own because
universal suffrage != everyone has the right to run for office) or maybe the slaves have some kind
of hierarchy and the slaves higher up on the totem pole are afraid of losing what little status they
have if the system collapses.
It’s not particularly likely, (and historically inaccurate) but it’s not entirely unthinkable either.
Hide ↑
 AlphaGamma says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:11 am ~new~
@ silver_swift: Or to go a bit more CW-y, you could have the slaves be leased convicts, and have
certain criminal laws be dramatically more heavily enforced against a certain group of people so
that a large proportion of them are felons.

Universal suffrage doesn’t necessarily preclude depriving people of the franchise as punishment for
a crime, after all. And even if the term of penal servitude for any given crime is relatively short, if
people with criminal records have limited opportunity to earn a living in non-criminal ways
(because nobody will hire them) then it often won’t be long after their release before they get
convicted again…
Hide ↑
 Doug S. says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:31 pm ~new~
I can also imagine debt slavery and indentured servitude being tolerated by voters…
Hide ↑
o Bugmaster says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:00 am ~new~
Alpha Centauri is the only true Civ. All others are but pale imitations.
 jrdougan says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:32 am ~new~
Too true. It has aged astonishingly well over the two decades it has been out. To be fair, some
elements of it have snuck into to the later Civ games, but the complete package is still unique.
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth’s final century, free flow of information is the only
safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on
information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually
constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who
would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Commissioner Pravin Lal, “U.N. Declaration of Rights”

June 17, 2020 at 6:18 am ~new~
Civ 6 is the first Civ game I’ve played that seemed as good as Alpha Centauri, over all. Very
different games, but with enough new, good mechanics that it’s not clearly inferior.
 Bugmaster says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:34 pm ~new~
I admit, I have not played Civ 6.

o fibio says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:17 am ~new~

Hey Civilization players: I haven’t bought a new entry since Civ 4. I’m curious if the game’s
“message”, for lack of a better term, has changed?
Probably the biggest changes has been a through-run trend away from being a historical game and
towards being a game with historical trappings. Civ 6 is particularly guilty of requiring high level
players to pick an initial strategy (Science, Culture, Religion, Diplomacy or WAR!!!) at the
beginning of the game and stick to it come hell or high water. While this and many changes have
arguably made the game more fun, or at least more approachable to new players, it fails to really
model history in the same way say the Paradox grand strategy games try to.
o mendax says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:03 am ~new~
The lead designer of Civ 6, Ed Beach, is also the designer of the wargames Here I Stand and Virgin
Queen which deal with the wars of religion in Europe in 16th century.
He is currently designing a game about…. Border Reivers.
49. Atlas says:

June 16, 2020 at 8:25 pm ~new~
This week, some students at Michigan State are trying to cancel him. They point an interview he did
on an alt-right podcast (he says it wasn’t alt-right when he interviewed on it), to his allowing MSU
to conduct research on police shootings (which concluded, like most such research, that they are
generally not racially motivated), and to his occasional discussion of the genetics of race (basically
just repeating the same “variance between vs. within clusters” distinction everyone else does, see eg
here). You can read the case being made against him here, although keep in mind a lot of it is
distorted and taken out of context, and you can read his response here.
I’m surprised that this is happening, because, while I knew that Dr. Shu was sort of one link
removed from various “controversial” people and subjects, my impression was that he personally
tended to avoid directly engaging with them. The fact that even his relatively limited remarks are
becoming the basis for a serious cancellation campaign is very unsettling. This should be opposed
now before it goes any further.
I remember that a lot of smart liberals I respect, e.g. Scott Lemieux, Matt Yglesias or Jeet Heer,
would be very dismissive of anti-political correctness arguments from circa 2014-2019. I think, as
the recent Jon Chait piece someone linked below demonstrates, it’s becoming clearer now that the
Chait/Jordan Peterson/Quillette critique of the stifling effect that social justice was having within
the Blue Tribe had a lot of merit. (See also the recent Matt Taibbi article.) It’s getting harder to
dismiss or defend the actions of such activists. There was an interesting thread on The Motte about
this recently that unfortunately I can’t find.

and to his occasional discussion of the genetics of race (basically just repeating the same “variance
between vs. within clusters” distinction everyone else does, see eg here).
I remember Scott once memorably observed (something to the effect of) you can be against the
death penalty on general principles while also arguing that it’s unmerited in your particular case. To
whatever extent this interpretation of the evidence of the case helps Dr. Hsu avoid being unjustly
canceled/fired/harassed etc., it’s great and I totally support it.
However, I think it’s generally important to be honest, and I think an honest reading of the
evidence here suggests that the real problem here is the Twitter activists’ general theory, not their
application of it to this particular case. Frankly, if you accept their theory, I’m not sure that their
application here is incorrect. To wit:

They point an interview he did on an alt-right podcast (he says it wasn’t alt-right when he
interviewed on it)
As I discuss in a comment below, I’m afraid I find it hard to see how the facts justify this
interpretation. Molyneux had been vigorously and frequently discussing controversial issues of
race, gender, immigration, etc. on his show for quite some time by 2017.
I don’t think (as I’ll explicate below) that having an interview with Stefan Molyneux should be a
terminal, or indeed any other sort of, offense. However, if you (at least nominally) agree with the
Twitter mob that having an interview with Stefan Molyneux is bad and people who do that should
be canceled, but you then defend Shu on the grounds that Molyneux wasn’t bad for the reasons
they argue he’s bad in 2017…well, you’re going to have a hard time making that fit the facts.
his allowing MSU to conduct research on police shootings (which concluded, like most such research,
that they are generally not racially motivated)
There’s just no way to avoid the substance of the issue here. The Twitter thread claimed:
Hsu’s office appears to have directed funding to research downplaying racism in bias in police
shootings
This seems to be correct. (At least in the sense of funding research that found little/no bias, not
necessarily research conducted with the prior intent to find that.) If you think that “downplaying
racism in bias in police shootings” is a crime of some sort, then the accusation appears to be well-
founded. Unless you’re willing to suggest that it’s indeed okay to downplay racism (by their/a
common definition) in your analysis if that’s what the evidence suggests, which I’m certainly willing
to do, I don’t see what the defense is supposed to be.

and to his occasional discussion of the genetics of race (basically just repeating the same “variance
between vs. within clusters” distinction everyone else does, see eg here)
It’s just a throw-away comment so I may be misinterpreting it, but this phrasing could make it
sound like Hsu was expressing the fallacious view popularized by Richard Lewontin that the greater
variance within clusters makes variance between clusters meaningless. On the contrary, Shu was
substantially arguing against this view. In the linked post, he concluded:

What seems to be true (from preliminary studies) is that the gene variants that were under strong
selection (reached fixation) over the last 10k years are different in different clusters. That is, the way
that modern people in each cluster differ, due to natural selection, from their own ancestors 10k
years ago is not the same in each cluster — we have been, at least at the genetic level, experiencing
divergent evolution. [Emphasis in original]
The Twitter thread accuses Shu of:
Advocating for biological differences between races
This is not an unreasonable description of the views Shu has (very rarely and in passing)
expressed. (Well, except for the weird use of the present participle “advocating,” which suggests
that he actively wanted to increase or create them or something, rather than e.g. “acknowledging”
them.) If you think that it’s a crime/racism to observe that there are genetic differences between
human populations, well, I have a hard time seeing what the defense against that accusation is
supposed to be here.
Dr. Shu wrote in his defense post:

As you can see, contrary to the Twitter accusations (lies), I do not endorse claims of genetic group
differences. In fact I urge great caution in this area.
This makes me imagine Michael Servetus saying to the inquisitors:”It’s a lie that I’m a heretic! I
think that the Bible and Jesus Christ are awesome! I’m just agnostic about the doctrine of the
Trinity, that’s all.”
From the point of view of the Twitter mob, being agnostic about whether or not there are group
genetic differences, rather than being 100% convinced that there aren’t, is a deeply heretical view.
Agnosticism is not a neutral, value/belief-less position, even in an epistemic vacuum but especially
in practice to paranoid dogmatic radicals.
If they accuse him of suggesting (even if very cautiously and infrequently) that there could be a
genetic basis for differences between population groups, that accusation would again seem to be
appropriately founded based on the evidence Shu presented in his own defense. The fundamental
issue is that it shouldn’t be a crime to suggest that, not that Shu didn’t ever suggest it.
Professor Hsu will probably land on his feet whatever happens, but it would be a great loss for
Michigan and its scientific community if he could no longer work with them; it would also have a
chilling effect on other scientists who want to discuss controversial topics or engage with the public.
This seems like a good time to link to “Free Thought and Official Propaganda” by Bertrand Russell.
o Randy M says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:07 pm ~new~
I agree with your take. This is a situation where neither truth nor good intentions are a suitable
counter-argument even if proved, and the mob isn’t in the mood for reconciliation. Thus the proper
response is probably “Yeah, so?” not “but I didn’t technically do all that.”
FYI Atlas, you seem to be having an autocorrect problem with Hsu’s name.
 Atlas says:
June 16, 2020 at 10:50 pm ~new~
Damn it, now I look like an idiot Congratulations, you passed the cognitive reflection test I slyly
inserted in my post to see if anyone was reading it!
(Serious) Thanks Randy, unfortunately the editing window has closed.

 Incurian says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:52 am ~new~
I like it better that way.

 Randy M says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:33 am ~new~
I wondered if it wasn’t another valid transliteration of his Chinese name or something, but Hsu’s
usage would probably have deference.


June 17, 2020 at 10:42 am ~new~
I wondered if it wasn’t another valid transliteration of his Chinese name or something
Definitely not. Shu is a separate syllable from Hsu. (In modern spelling, shu is still shu, but hsü has
become xu.)
Hide ↑
o Atlas says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:09 pm ~new~
Some follow-up miscellany:
One thing Scott didn’t mention is that Dr. Shu apparently interviewed Ron Unz on his podcast
recently. You would notice that Ron is, uh…”controversial” these days sort of the same way that
you’d notice that a supernova is “bright.” (Fun fact: Ron, who affects a rather sober and cautious
persona in his published essays, posted some wild $#*! in the comments of Information Processing
in the past.)
Other people who apparently have to be canceled for interviewing/being interviewed by Molyneux:
Noam Chomsky, James Flynn, Joe Rogan, our own David Friedman, Garrett Jones. (Please don’t
actually cancel them as a result of this comment.)
My core contention/defense is two-fold: 1), It’s generally fine to talk to people with
different/bad/extreme views, and 2) The specific views in question should not be so far beyond the
pale of debate that it’s anathema to bring them up.
1) Read the Russell speech I linked above if you want a lengthy defense of freedom of speech and
conscience, I don’t think it’s super controversial (at least nominally) to suggest that those things
are good. The point is that: If you disagree with e.g. Molyneux’s views and don’t want them to
spread, that’s fine, then make your own videos/podcast where you explain why you think they’re
wrong and let people make up their own minds. It’s a violation of the silver rule to decide that you
should have and exercise the power to intimidate people with different ideas into not expressing or
defending them. If you have good ideas, you don’t need to do that.
We’ve already tried censorship, ostracism, intimidation, etc. of the kind of kooky views that Ron
Unz provides a platform for on his increasingly popular website the Unz Review. I don’t know,
maybe instead of just asserting that they’re wrong, and trying to prevent anyone from expressing
them, we should try explaining why and arguing that they’re wrong?
One case to consider is the prevalence of Marxists among social science academics:
[S]elf-identified Marxists are rare in academe today. The highest proportion of Marxist academics
can be found in the social sciences, and there they represent less than 18 percent of all professors
(among the social science fields for which we can issue discipline-specific estimates, sociology
contains the most Marxists, at 25.5 percent).
Marxism, in my view, is an immensely potentially destructive ideology, one that motivated the
horrendous crimes of Maoist China, Stalin’s USSR and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, with few redeeming
features. But I genuinely do not care that some fraction of social science academics are Marxists,
because Marxism can be freely debated. (I personally recently graduated from a Blue Tribe state
school, and there were small but non-zero numbers of students and faculty who praised Marx,
Lenin, Trotsky, Guevara, etc. I found it sort of amusing, but not really a cause for concern given
that people, myself included, were allowed to freely and honestly criticize Marxism in class/on
campus.) I think a similar standard should be applied by people who think that far-right ideas are
really dangerous.
2) I don’t think the specific people/issues are beyond the pale of debate, even though I don’t think
that having the wrong opinions should be a crime in any case. E.g., I think Stefan Molyneux,
though he certainly has many foibles, is a smart guy who is capable of presenting a cogent case for
his views. I don’t know that I agree with his views on e.g. immigration, and I know that I really
vehemently disagree with some of his views e.g. on ethics, but I just don’t think that he’s less
reasonable in some cosmic sense than the New York Times, Vox or Jacobin these days. (Especially
now that you’re allowed to say “Abolish the police!” in their pages, even though that’s still a
relatively marginal view in them.)
Likewise, I don’t think the views Shu expressed about possible genetic population differences,
gender differences, aptitude test differences, embryo selection, etc. are really off-base on the
merits. (Of course, I agree with many of them, so I would think that.) If you don’t agree with
them, that’s fine, but I don’t think either the views Shu expressed or the evidence he cited in favor
of them are much worse than those of his would-be cancelers.

 teageegeepea says:
June 16, 2020 at 11:07 pm ~new~
The folks at Mises.org did not think Stefan Molyneux was good at making even arguments whose
conclusions they agreed with.

June 16, 2020 at 9:44 pm ~new~
I am not at all surprised this is happening, and am honestly shocked that Steve has been able to
hold on as long as he has. This doesn’t justify firing him – I could be shocked if an atheist managed
to stay alive for a few months in Saudi Arabia, without being in favor of killing him – but it makes it
all dreadfully predictable.

 Atlas says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:52 pm ~new~
I guess I was insufficiently pessimistic because I was thinking about things like e.g. Nicholas Wade
being a NYT science reporter for I think at least 10 years or Greg Cochran having (I think?) a fairly
normal anthropology professorship for a while. Or for that matter David Reich being one of the
world’s leading population geneticists at Harvard, despite being as or more explicit than Shu in this
NYT op-ed. (And also, uh, having that unfortunate last name.)
Turns out the Great Awokening is a thing after all.


June 16, 2020 at 10:09 pm ~new~
I am also surprised about all of those people.

June 16, 2020 at 11:08 pm ~new~
Henry Harpending was a normal professor, and I think through him Greg got some sort of nominal
status at Utah, but I don’t think that’s ever been his primary source of income.

June 17, 2020 at 12:25 pm ~new~
I am not at all surprised this is happening, and am honestly shocked that Steve has been able to hold
on as long as he has.
I find this admission pretty disturbing, because it tends to imply that you are intentionally lying in
your post when you characterize his discussion of the genetics of race as “basically repeating the
same [thing] everyone else does”, even as you link that claim to a post in which Hsu says the
same thing that got Larry Summers dismissed from his university administrative position 15 years
ago.
 Spookykou says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:52 pm ~new~
Doesn’t your own post support and provide evidence for the ‘everyone says this and it is grounds
to get you canceled’ interpretation of what Scott is saying, I am not seeing how that is a lie, as
much as it is Scott complaining about the state of things.

o INH5 says:
June 16, 2020 at 11:11 pm ~new~

As I discuss in a comment below, I’m afraid I find it hard to see how the facts justify this
interpretation. Molyneux had been vigorously and frequently discussing controversial issues of race,
gender, immigration, etc. on his show for quite some time by 2017.
I second this. I fully oppose Hsu facing professional consequences for this, but Molyneux was
widely considered a crank in the Youtube community, even by many “centrists” and “right-
wingers”, well before May 2017 when the interview happened. If Hsu genuinely believes this about
Molyneux, then he really should have done more research on him back in 2017 and especially right
now.
50. LightlyRow says:

June 16, 2020 at 8:22 pm ~new~
If you’re researching infectious diseases, everyone understands that you need to work in secure
facilities and take precaution in your work lest you accidentally release a dangerous pathogen or
allow someone to break in and maliciously do so.
It’s the same thing with genetics research and speculation on racial differences. There is an
incredibly energetic and highly-motivated set of bad-faith actors who will use anything they can to
legitimize white supremacist views. There is an even larger contingent of casual racists who would
believe racist views if given by a plausible authority.
If you’re a researcher, you need to take heightened precautions before even speculating on racial
differences and you need to take pro-active measures to minimize the chances that your research
is purposefully used for ill-intent. This is as unfair as it is unfair to demand that Ebola researchers
have thorough safety procedures and a secure facility before they can recreate the virus.
Steve took very little precautions. If you don’t think his blog has been used by racists, just read the
comments. This isn’t a case of someone being caught up because a bad group happened to
stumble upon their website. He allowed his legitimacy as a professor and the VP of research for a
major institution to be used by actors with obvious ill-intent repeatedly. He is not being punished
for researching taboo topics – there are plenty of genetics researchers, plenty of intelligence
researchers, plenty of people who are studying difference in genetics between human sub-groups
who are not being cancelled. He’s being cancelled from his job as VP of research, not as a professor
because he is so blasé about the risk that it demonstrates exceptionally bad judgment.
It is characteristic of Scott that doesn’t address any of the actual claims of the petition, relying
instead on Steve being kind and patient and having a good heart. Lots of people who are reckless
have the same qualities. It has no bearing on anything. If you’re reckless with this type of risk, an
institution has every right to determine that you don’t deserve to hold a position of power and
prestige.
o Cliff says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:41 pm ~new~

differences and you need to take pro-active measures to minimize the chances that your research is
purposefully used for ill-intent.
What type of precautions are you thinking of? Like, you can’t allow blog comments if you research
in this area?
 LightlyRow says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:53 pm ~new~
Like you need to be much more definitive to highlight the limitations of the research, be careful to
correct ambiguity in your statements, be careful about the forums and circumstances in which you
discuss the research, take steps to rectify if you made mistakes. I noted the blog comments as an
indication of how the usual readers of his blog evaluate his writing. Having someone misinterpret
you is not the fault here, it is a consistent failure to take any kind of care.
I’m sure the usual suspects will be out in full force outraged that research in this area should be
any more sensitive than anything else, but they are all disingenuous in their arguments. Every
single person I have discussed this topic with online or in person is consistently outraged because
*they believe that genetic differences between racial groups results in average cognitive
differences and that aggregate social outcomes are due to this difference*. They don’t care about
free inquiry – they never defend anything else in any other context – they just care that this
particular view be maintained.

 textor says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:20 pm ~new~
To demonstrate that people you’ve talked to do not care about free inquiry, you’d do well to either
show them not being in support of free inquiry in general (Sam Harris comes to mind as a
counterexample), or this topic being a representative one. So can you come up with another
contentious topic which deals with such a consequential issue, has such a wealth of data in support
for the position that’s socially shunned, and is censored to a comparable degree? Ah, but you’re of
the mind that it’s not being censored:

He is not being punished for researching taboo topics – there are plenty of genetics researchers,
plenty of intelligence researchers, plenty of people who are studying difference in genetics between
human sub-groups who are not being cancelled. He’s being cancelled from his job as VP of research,
not as a professor because he is so blasé about the risk that it demonstrates exceptionally bad
judgment.
Forgive me for pedantry; Geoffrey Miller says, in a thread about another such cancellation:
There are fewer than 500 active intelligence researchers in the world, and fewer than 250 usually
attend the International Society for Intelligence Research annual conferences. By contrast, there are
tens of thousands of social psychologists. The deterrence is very effective.
Now you could also add Geoffrey to your list of people who you imply have some objectionable
motivations, but he’s right; research of genetics of intelligence is extremely unpopular, to the
extent research of intelligence itself, without any racial angle, is becoming toxic. Also, you are not
correct that he is being canceled because of bad judgement, at least inasmuch as you don’t mean
his cancellation is a consequence of bad judgement; grad student union’s intent is explicitly to
punish his views per se.
I also have issue with the following:

There is an incredibly energetic and highly-motivated set of bad-faith actors who will use anything
they can to legitimize white supremacist views.
Is there any evidence for this being a real issue? But of course yours is a belief the supporter of
this witchhunt shares, as he attacks luminaries like Arthur Jensen and William Shockley, claiming
that they were motivated by money and not pursuit of truth; and gloats that “hereditarianism” is
being slowly erased from the field.
I find your thinly veiled accusations of bad faith hypocritical, sorry.

 gallowstree says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:34 pm ~new~
Asserting that there is a ‘wealth of data’ supporting racial differences in IQ, and subsequently
disputing any link between genetics and white supremacy, makes me think that your empirical
standards are perhaps not terribly consistent.

Hide ↑
June 16, 2020 at 10:37 pm ~new~
Is there any evidence for this being a real issue?
Is there any proof that humans have consistently used race as a justification for violence? You’re
obviously arguing in bad faith, can’t take anything you say with any ounce of seriousness if you
actually doubt the existence of white supremacists as being an issue or don’t recognize the
propensity of humans to latch on to race as a justification for violence.
I’m sure that there exists a strongly organized group of people who are trying to silence others
because they disagree with their political views, but there does not exist a strongly organized
group of people trying to implement a racial caste system.

Hide ↑
 Aapje says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:52 am ~new~
@LightlyRow
Is there any proof that humans have consistently used the desire to stamp out beliefs they
consider harmful as a justification for violence?

I’m sure that there exists a strongly organized group of people who are trying to silence others
because they disagree with their political views, but there does not exist a strongly organized group
of people trying to implement a racial caste system.
So does that mean that you agree that people have a point who don’t see white supremacy as such
a serious issue that it requires us violating our core principles, because there is not actually a real
risk of ending up with an institutionalized racial caste system, but there is a real risk of
institutionalized silencing of people with certain views?

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 8:14 am ~new~
There obviously is “an incredibly energetic and highly-motivated set of bad-faith actors who will
use anything they can to legitimize white supremacist views”. They are generally called, you know,
white supremacists.
Hide ↑
 Scoop says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:17 pm ~new~
@lightlyrow
can’t take anything you say with any ounce of seriousness if you actually doubt the existence of white
supremacists as being an issue
They’re not. They just aren’t. They were. But thankfully not anymore.
See You are still crying wolf, part 3

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 1:52 pm ~new~
@Scoop
Wait, you are claiming that white supremacists do not exist?

Hide ↑
 Nick says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:58 pm ~new~
@AlesZiegler
He’s not claiming white supremacists don’t exist, he’s claiming they aren’t an issue anymore. That
is explicitly what he said. It’s also implied by the linked section of Scott’s article, which provides
evidence that white supremacists are rare and powerless.

Hide ↑
 Scoop says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:08 pm ~new~
Wait, you are claiming that white supremacists do not exist?
I am claiming, as Scott thoroughly demonstrates at the link I provided, that their numbers are so
tiny as to make them zero threat to society as a whole,
They are, happily, a tiny faction of impotent losers, and there is no honest way to look at currently
available evidence and come to any other conclusion.
To claim that someone’s research into IQ is dangerous because it supports WS attempt to
transform the US is absurd.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 2:26 pm ~new~
@Nick
Oh, I see. We will just have to agree to disagree on that, I guess. I think that even if they are few
in number, they are still an issue.

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 2:53 pm ~new~
@AlesZiegler: If a certain heresy is socially dangerous, how much effort should we dedicate and
how much should we trade off other values to reduce their number from “a few thousand, probably
all in low-status positions” down to a number where we feel they’re not an issue at all and what
would that number be?

Hide ↑
June 18, 2020 at 1:01 am ~new~
@Le Maistre Chat
Frankly, I do not like this phrasing of “reducing the number” of white supremacists, as if they
should be sent to gulag. That is most certainly not what I want. But I do think that people who
work in the field of human genetics should be aware that their research might be misrepresented
as a part of racial (including nonwhite) supremacist propaganda, and they should not treat racial
supremacism as a non-issue.
Hide ↑
 Cliff says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:25 pm ~new~
To be clear, are you saying Hsu was not being careful in the things he said about his research? Or
are you saying he should have policed his comments more?

June 16, 2020 at 10:46 pm ~new~
He was not careful in the things he said. The comments are evidence of his failure to take sufficient
care – not just because he should have known how his statements would be misused, but because
he *did* know (as indicated by the consistently racist comments on his blog through many years)
and he did not adjust his behavior to be more clear or forceful on the topics to mitigate the ability
of of misuse. This is sufficient, in my view, to lose a VP of Research position because of the lack of
judgment it demonstrates. It is not sufficient, imo, to revoke tenure.

Hide ↑
 B_Epstein says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:41 am ~new~
Your experience online and your interpretation thereof are your own. But there certainly are many
who are willing to consider non-extremal options – “perhaps genetic differences amount to small
differences in cognitive ability between groups, though almost certainly smaller than internal
variance. These differences might explain some part of the observed social outcomes. If we don’t
understand this well, we won’t be able to have meaningful discussions on this vital topic.” Are all
people holding this view being disingenuous? Did no person you’ve met online profess this, not
even a view, but a question?

June 17, 2020 at 10:06 am ~new~
Either the supposed cognitive differences are significant, or they aren’t.

If you hold that they aren’t significant, then the people advocating mindfulness of them are putting
WAY too much effort into a subject likely to yield marginal returns on investment. A two-point IQ
difference, say, would be inadequate to explain observed racial disparities in American society
If you hold that they are significant, then you’re basically arguing something that might impolitely
be phrased as “our society cannot accommodate green people without acknowledging the obvious
truth that green people are, on the whole and on average, with perhaps some honorable
exceptions, rather stupid.”
This latter is a position that has a long history of being held in the face of ample evidence to the
contrary, through multiple paradigm shifts in biology and medicine, ceding only very stubbornly
and very slowly to changes that make the old positions untenable.
It is this combination that gives rise to such suspicion. On the one hand, language is often used to
imply that the differences are small BUT that it is vitally important that we keep talking about
them. On the other hand, the idea that these differences even exist has been defended for
centuries in a stubborn rear-guard action for centuries. The rear guard includes people who grow
so wrathful and bitter at the idea of racial equality that they resort to terrorism when they’re afraid
it might happen.
…
I am reminded of an analogy Scott used several years ago. Imagine that the Department of Public
Works starts putting a new chemical in the water. They assure you that it will not, contrary to
scurrilous rumors, cause your fingers to fall off. But you notice that when splashed with the
chemical they scream “NOOOO MY FINGERS!” and panic and wash it off themselves.
When a claim is frequently advanced by people with strong apparent motive to manipulate the
truth, suspicion becomes inevitable.

Hide ↑
 Scoop says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:31 am ~new~
This latter is a position that has a long history of being held in the face of ample evidence to the
contrary, through multiple paradigm shifts in biology and medicine, ceding only very stubbornly
and very slowly to changes that make the old positions untenable.
Can you link to some of this ample evidence because, although I certainly haven’t read all the
literature on IQ, everything I have ever seen has found significant aggregate differences?
Edit: It occurs to me that it’s rude to demand citations without actually providing some like these.
(It wouldn’t let me put the fourth link in.)
What has discredited this?

Hide ↑
 B_Epstein says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:39 am ~new~
……
……
I’m genuinely confused. One of us really misreads the other.
First, my point was simply that LightlyRow engaged in massive hyperbole, pretty much claiming
that all online discussion of this topic is driven by more-or-less hidden white supremacists, not-too-
thinly implying that no decent and reasonable person would ever question the mainstream position
– and thus if someone does question it, they’re not decent and reasonable. I don’t see how your
reply really engages with mine, here.
Second,
Either the supposed cognitive differences are significant, or they aren’t.
Nope. Just nope. You don’t get to reply to a comment about the existence of a continuum by
simply assuming a dichotomy.
Next,
If you hold that they aren’t significant, then the people advocating mindfulness of them are putting
WAY too much effort into a subject likely to yield marginal returns on investment. A two-point IQ
difference, say, would be inadequate to explain observed racial disparities in American society
Disparities are multi-faceted. If we’re measuring, e.g., the number of key politicians and CEOs,
then a two-point average difference might well explain a lot. Or perhaps it would take 5 points. Or
500. Wouldn’t we want to know?.. For reference, what is your stance on the 15-20 IQ advantage
enjoyed by subsets of Ashkenazi Jews as an explanation for their unusual prominence in certain
fields?
Then,
If you hold that they are significant, then you’re basically arguing something that might impolitely
be phrased as “our society cannot accommodate green people without acknowledging the obvious
truth that green people are, on the whole and on average, with perhaps some honorable exceptions,
rather stupid.”
You can absolutely hold that they’re significant (what does that mean?..) but less so than internal
variance (as I wrote, explicitly). That is entirely and obviously different from your description.
The rear guard includes people who grow so wrathful and bitter at the idea of racial equality that
they resort to terrorism when they’re afraid it might happen.
Eh, the avant-guard of the opposite idea includes people who grow so wrathful and bitter at the
idea of any kind of physical difference between races, including, say, height, that they resort to
denial of medical differences (and sometimes, terrorism). Both these groups suck a great deal.
That’s a blatantly obvious “reverse intelligence” mistake.

Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:25 pm ~new~
@Simon_Jester Holding that racial differences in personality are significant, on the basis of bogus
evidence, was widespread back when political pressure, and the biases of the scientists
themselves, were in favor of the belief that differences were significant. Today, political pressures
and the biases of most scientists are very much in favor of the belief that there are no such
differences. As such, there is much more likelihood of the latter belief being held very stubbornly,
even if there is little or no evidence for it.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 5:02 pm ~new~
Are all people holding this view being disingenuous? Did no person you’ve met online profess this,
not even a view, but a question?
My experience, which is just my own, is that literally all of the people I’ve met, when pressed on
this issue (and who hold a strong or weak view that genetic differences do exist and the genetic
differences are responsible for aggregate social outcomes), have a significant attachment to it
because they believe that it should be a serious consideration in determining which legal policies
(affirmative action, policing, etc.) to take. They are attached to the belief itself because of its
political implications, and not to the belief as a curious scientific fact in itself. That might be just my
experience, but I have read Chateau Heartiste back when he was Roissy and am well familiar with
the alt-right / manosphere / MRA / race-realist / neo-reaction / dark enlightenment blogs and
thinkers since way back in Obama’s first term, and I feel pretty confident in my belief that the
focus on this topic is precisely because they would like to use it as a justification for certain politics
and not because of an interest in science.

Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:57 pm ~new~
@LightlyRow It’s likely that people are interested in this topic because of its political implications.
Does that mean that this interest is wrong, or that it’s only right as long as the science supports
particular policies?
You seem to think there is a significant risk that if people wrongly believe in genetic differences (or
perhaps even if they rightly believe them), that may lead to dangerous political consequences, but
there is no risk from the possibility of people wrongly believing that there are no differences. If the
only options on the table were discriminating against minorities, or not discriminating against
anyone, as they were in the 60s, then this view would be reasonable.
However, today, legalizing discrimination against minorities is a light-year outside the Overton
window; there is a pretty strong consensus that discrimination against historically disadvantaged
minorities based on their group membership is wrong even if there is a difference between the
mean abilities of the groups. On the other hand, affirmative action in favor of less successful
minorities is very much on the table, and it’s usually justified based on the assumption that there
are no genetic differences, which (according to some worldviews) implies that disparities in
outcomes are the result of injustice. This ideology demands affirmative action to be increased until
all races have equal outcomes. If there actually are genetic group differences in abilities, this
requires discrimination against white people or successful minorities.
So, I don’t think the idea that only a belief in the existence of differences can be dangerous holds
today.
I’m not saying that only a false belief that there are no differences is a problem, and a false belief
in the existence of differences isn’t. If we wrongly believe that there are genetic differences, then
we may pay less attention to (potentially remediable) societal causes of outcome differences.
As far as I can tell, at this point we don’t know if there are genetic differenes; this is what Hsu
says. Then people who assert that there are differences are wrong; they are about equally wrong
as people who assert that there are no differences. The former group has about a hundred times
less clout.
Hide ↑
 Aapje says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:56 am ~new~
@LightlyRow
Every single person I have discussed this topic with online or in person is consistently outraged
because *they believe that genetic differences between racial groups results in average cognitive
differences and that aggregate social outcomes are due to this difference*. They don’t care about free
inquiry – they never defend anything else in any other context – they just care that this particular
view be maintained.
You can also turn this around: can it be that almost no one who rejects these beliefs is principled
enough to defend free speech? That would also result in your observation that only people with one
kind of belief speak out in favor of free inquiry, for cases like this.
Note that you can find people who will defend free inquiry in such beliefs and into other beliefs on
this very forum, so your accusation of bad faith is unconvincing to me.

o gallowstree says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:53 pm ~new~
Nothing to add to the substance of the original comment, but wanted to register vigorous
agreement to the characterization of Hsu’s behavior. This is an issue of professionalism and
responsibility.
o Clutzy says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:05 pm ~new~

If true, which I am skeptical of, the same extremely heightened scrutiny should be demanded of
social justice social sciences. Because as we have seen, not hypothetically, actually seen in 2020,
there is a highly motivated set of bad faith actors that will use anything they can to justify rioting
and violence. And there is a large group of leftists willing to use their studies to justify massive
changes in public policy.


June 16, 2020 at 9:09 pm ~new~
If true, which I am skeptical of, the same extremely heightened scrutiny should be demanded of
social justice social sciences. Because as we have seen, not hypothetically, actually seen in 2020,
there is a highly motivated set of bad faith actors that will use anything they can to justify rioting
and violence. And there is a large group of leftists willing to use their studies to justify massive
changes in public policy.
Exactly. No double standards!
 JPNunez says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:57 am ~new~
The current riots were originated on a video of police violence.
Dunno what that has to do with “social justice social sciences”.

 Randy M says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:20 am ~new~
But why protest in California (let alone Europe) when it is a Minnesota police department, if not for
a belief that widespread racism is to blame?

June 17, 2020 at 10:24 am ~new~
Because quite a few police departments in California, and for that matter also Europe, also indulge
in excessive brutality. Regardless of whether racism is to blame, they’re protesting the murder* of
George Floyd because they have reason to worry that they may be next.
_________________
*Gonna be blunt, when you choke a man out for like eight minutes, it’s murder.
Hide ↑
 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:40 am ~new~
The proximate cause was a video, sure. But reflect on why you definitely know the name George
Floyd but probably don’t know the name Tony Timpa. (Even if you do, consider how many, how
large, and how well attended by politicians and the celebrities any memorials to Mr. Timpa or
protests of his death have been)
The idea that unjustified police violence is primarily a racial problem is widespread culturally and
seems to be the dominant strain of thought in the academy, to the point of actively suppressing
alternative explanations. And both the reactions to individual instances of police violence and the
proposed solutions to it are going to be strongly influenced by this, quite possibly in a very
negative and destructive way.

 Atlas says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:50 am ~new~
The proximate cause was a video, sure. But reflect on why you definitely know the name George
Floyd but probably don’t know the name Tony Timpa.
Google Trends is a great way to quantify and substantiate these claims.
Hide ↑
 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:52 pm ~new~
The crazy thing about that (in addition to the obvious) is that the first peak for Tony Timpa (when
the video came out last summer) is like 8 times smaller than the current peak, which lags the
George Floyd peak by a couple weeks.
“Breonna Taylor” vs. “Dennis Tuttle” is also instructive. That one is doubly interesting in that
“Breonna Taylor” peaked recently at 4x the height of the peak surrounding her actual killing.
Another (less reliable) approach: Wikipedia maintains monthly lists of individuals killed by police in
the US. The lists aren’t comprehensive (although there are a lot of entries) but I poked through to
see how many entries were high profile enough to warrant individual Wiki pages. Excluding various
mass shooting and terrorism incidents (which have their own pages, but mostly because of the
crime and not because the individual died due to police), there does seem to be a bias in that the
“notable” incidents are disproportionately black victims. A deeper dive than I have the time or skill
for might involve trolling the sources for each death and figuring out what percentage get national
publication level coverage.
The general impression is hard to shake, that the most salient feature in whether a police killing
makes national news is the race of the victim.

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 1:16 pm ~new~
I remember Tony Timpa, although I rapidly forgot his name.
But I came across the video many times when it first came out, as sign of the abuses the cops do.
Everyone I knew was angry about it, just like everyone I knew was angry about George Floyd.
I wouldn’t have minded nation-wide protests over him. I’m not sure what they would have looked
like, though.
Hide ↑
 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:55 pm ~new~
I didn’t know until a couple days ago. Maybe it was a local/regional thing?
I know we tend to get coverage of basically every police involved death in the local metroplex, but
most don’t seem to become national news.

Hide ↑
 Clutzy says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:04 am ~new~
Social justice science and its not very rigorous statistics are constantly cited by the protesters,
rioters, supporters in media, and politicians they are allied with. They are given as justifications not
only of the protests, but indeed even of the violence. They have been used to weave a narrative
that police are hunting black people.

June 16, 2020 at 9:14 pm ~new~

I don’t think I’m alone in saying that the whole “your words are violence!” shtick has been wholly
unconvincing every single time I’ve heard it before, and I’m skeptical that you have anything new
to say on the matter. Words are words, violence is violence, and I can’t help but think of ways to
demonstrate the difference between the two.
Except, this time you actually do have something new to add. Instead of violence, the words you
don’t like are now a deadly plague. And you think this is an appropriate comparison to make now,
in the middle of an actual deadly plague that’s already killed a couple orders of magnitude more
people this year than the KKK did in their entire existence? Yeah, this version is even more
offensive. And I think wholly anticonvincing to anyone who hasn’t already drunk your brand of
kool-aid. Let’s not have any more of this, please.

By the same logic, anyone in the race- or gender- or ethnic-studes fields, anyone researching
intersectional anything, needs to be extraordinarily careful unto the point of self-censorship, lest
they set off a riot. Er, another riot. You’ll say that of course that’s different. And you’re right, it is
different. The marginal Social Justice Warrior, the kind only one excuse away from taking the
“warrior” part to the violently literal level, is I believe far more likely to seriously listen to the words
of a scientist or university professor than is the marginal white supremacist.
I nonetheless do not ask such researchers to suppress their own expression of whatever scientific
research they might do, but that’s because I believe academic freedom and the whole panoply of
first-amendment rights are not just the Law but Good Ideas. If we’re changing that, suppressing
speech because we’re afraid the wrong sorts of people might listen to it – you go first.
ETA: Ninja’d by Clutzy, at least in part

 Clutzy says:
June 16, 2020 at 10:17 pm ~new~
Yours is better. The price of speed is often quality!

o HALtheWise says:
June 16, 2020 at 11:52 pm ~new~
I think the infectious disease analogy is interesting because it highlights some interesting questions
about agency and blameworthiness. It seems to me like there’s a spectrum of situations, roughly
as follows:
1) An infectious disease laboratory uses inadequate protective gear, and a deadly disease is
released. It would be ridiculous to blame the disease for spreading, since that’s just what diseases
naturally do, so we blame the laboratory.
2) A genetics researcher publishes a paper with a factually true but easily abusable claim about
human genetics. White supremacists abuse the true claim to support false and/or harmful beliefs,
and ultimately to cause material harm to people. This case is up for debate.
3) A person wears attractive clothing in a public place. A sexual offender sees them, and
rape/abuse ensues. In this case, it’s pretty clear that blaming the victim is bad, and the fault
should lie with the criminal.
In all three cases, the situation could have been avoided by changing the behavior of either the
person that took a risk or the entity that ultimately committed the crime, so there is some sense in
which either would be “productive” places to lay blame. There are a variety of arguments for why
case 1 and case 3 are different, and I find thinking through those to be insightful for deciding how
to classify case 2.
Ultimately, I’m concerned that by transferring blame onto researchers like Steve for the actions of
white supremacists, you end up transferring blame off of the white supremacists themselves, and
treating them as if they are have no agency themselves (like a virus). That seems dangerous, since
I don’t actually think the KKK is a unchangeable part of nature, and I would very much like to work
towards a world where there isn’t racial violence no matter what papers get published.
June 17, 2020 at 10:34 am ~new~
The problem is that you can only blame a given group of people so hard.
When an axe murderer murders people with axes, you blame them for it.
But, to add a humorous hypothetical… Suppose you find out that they kept having problems with
their axes breaking, and they kept going back to a particular supplier? And that they’ve been
leaving five-star reviews of the supplier saying “this axe is great for murdering people!” At some
point, the supplier’s behavior will start to seem downright irresponsible.
We wouldn’t normally blame the hardware store that sold the murderer the axe… but if there is
evidence of a persistent commensal relationship between the store and the murderer, then people
may want to address that.
This is also a reason why the “don’t blame the rape victim” analogy breaks down. In the rape,
there are only two parties involved- a criminal, and a victim. It is clear that the criminal is 100%
responsible for the crime.
But here, there are three parties involved: the white supremacists, the targets of white
supremacism, and the people who (inadvertently?) keep passing the white supremacists stuff that
they see fit to use as ammunition.
The rapist is clearly responsible for the rape, but if someone keeps selling the rapist Viagra and it
never occurs to them “stop, you’re making this worse,” then that does not say good things about
them. They’re either gullible or complicit.

o Murphy says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:38 am ~new~

they can to legitimize white supremacist views. There is an even larger contingent of casual racists
who would believe racist views if given by a plausible authority.
This is Lysenkoism.
Political Lysenkoism. And Lysenkoism tends to have a price in human lives.
“our political enemies might like your results, hence pretend you have different results or shut up
and don’t tell anyone”
It’s also absurd. Lets carry forward with your virus comparison.
Pathogens like Smallpox and TB have killed more people than every war in recorded history
and every genocide in recorded history combined. Vaccines are our primary defense against
them. As such, if you’re remotely intellectually consistent/honest any argument you make about
genetics of race should also apply to talking about vaccine adverse events related to anything that
anti-vaxers might use to support their position.
Every anti-vaxer gishgallop includes papers like this:
Narcolepsy and Influenza A(H1N1) Pandemic 2009 Vaccination in the United States
and
Increased Incidence and Clinical Picture of Childhood Narcolepsy Following the 2009 H1N1
Pandemic Vaccination Campaign in Finland
Should the authors have avoided talking about it? been quiet about it? Just shut up in case the the
collaborators of the ancient evils that have stalked the children of mankind throughout history
might find it useful for a quote? Should they have phrased everything in such a way as to not imply
that a vaccine could be dangerous?
Of course not!
the authors were scientists, they observed reality and they spoke about it frankly. Like good
scientists should.
If you’re only allowed come to a politically acceptable result, you’re no longer doing science.
You don’t seem to want science, you seem to want propaganda for your own tribal beliefs.
June 17, 2020 at 10:44 am ~new~
In regards to the vaccine issue: Aye, there’s the rub!
Because see… we DO expect scientists who report adverse reactions to vaccines to be cautious and
circumspect in reporting their results. Wildly speculative articles or papers (“DO VACCINES CAUSE
ALZHEIMER’S?”) are discouraged.
We want the facts, but we also want the facts to be used by honest people for honest purposes. It
is a genuine problem that there are of people who, out of ignorance or malice, will use the facts
badly, who will abuse or overuse the truth to support predetermined positions that have a history
of causing destruction. The fact that this is true requires a degree of caution in vaccine research
that is not required in, say, astrophysics.

Because nobody’s gonna die in an epidemic caused by public hysteria that is in turn the result of
some asshole willfully misinterpreting the evidence in a paper about astrophysics.
And so we don’t really mind if astrophysicists ramble about God or overstate the significance of
some finding or whatever, because it’s ultimately pretty harmless. We DO mind if vaccine
researchers start talking in ways that can easily be seized on by bad actors. The very importance of
their subject matter demands some awareness of how easy it would be to cause disasters by
overstating one’s case.
============================================
@LightlyRow was very much talking about this. Note that Lightly didn’t say “and therefore you
should suppress your confirmed results,” and it’s disingenuous to paint the argument that way.
Lightly said:
differences and you need to take pro-active measures to minimize the chances that your research is
purposefully used for ill-intent.
This isn’t “suppress the truth, it contradicts my political beliefs.” It’s “make sure NOT to leave room
for some genuinely nasty and rotten people to willfully misinterpret your results to their
advantage.”
 Murphy says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:02 pm ~new~
After reading LightlyRow’s other posts I think you’re assuming far far too much good faith.
Nobody mobs vaccine researchers for publishing that they’re seeing an unusual cluster of oddball
cases that might be a vaccine adverse event. Even if it’s speculative. Indeed it’s encouraged.
The crackpots constantly quote legit vaccine papers out of context or in misleading ways. We
don’t respond by trying to fire the researchers.
We respond by calling the anti-vaxers idiots. Not by trying to silence the researchers they quote.
In reality we don’t make such absurd demands of vaccine researchers.
But we do of geneticists.
I point to those papers because they verifiably have ended up on most anti-vaxer gish gallops.
Whatever careful phrasing you claim was used, it had no effect on the anti-vaxers.
They also ended up on the CDC website because we don’t censor things like that.
Because while the field of vaccine research has 1 pack of evil idiots on one side, genetics has 2
groups of evil, anti-science idiots to deal with. One trying to twist their results and one made up of
people who object to the very existence of the field of human genetics on political grounds.

June 17, 2020 at 12:11 pm ~new~
+1. I think this is the most insightful post on this topic, and the takeaway lesson for me in this
argument.
ETA: I just mean the part about “we pile on geneticists but not vaccine researchers.” I think
LightlyRow is arguing in good faith, but is generally incorrect.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 4:44 pm ~new~
The responses to my comments here remind me why I stopped participating in SSC a few years
back. Not one person has recognized that I was making the argument that Hsu is engaged in a
form of negligence, which does not warrant legal sanction in the form of damages, does not
warrant removal of tenure, but does warrant removal of his position as VP of research.
The commentators here cannot seem to distinguish between a duty to take care vs. a prohibition
on an act. It is the difference between being liable for setting off fireworks negligently versus
prohibiting fireworks altogether. I never suggested his research should be prohibited.

Every single instance in which people in these comments have said “we don’t make heightened
demands on researchers in X field,” we actually DO. Vaccine researchers are well aware of the
potential for misuse and take active measures to try to counter it.
If you want to argue that you think Hsu DID take sufficient care, that is fine and reasonable people
can disagree. What instead people are arguing, although they fail to articulate it in these terms, is
that Hsu does not owe a duty of care regarding how his research may be used. I disagree, and I
don’t think any rational evaluation of the last 150 years of history can lead to any conclusion
except that research which may be used to promote racist views should be carefully phrased and
discussed to try to limit the possibility of misuse. The duty is heightened the more responsibility
and authority you have in an organization whose values are explicitly about inclusion and
tolerance.
This isn’t a slippery slope, and it isn’t that hard of a judgment to make. The basic inability to grasp
the notion of duty to care versus blanket prohibition, and to distinguish between being careful and
suppression is at the root of almost all of the comments here.


June 17, 2020 at 4:56 pm ~new~
Every single instance in which people in these comments have said “we don’t make heightened
demands on researchers in X field,” we actually DO. Vaccine researchers are well aware of the
potential for misuse and take active measures to try to counter it.
I’m not aware of any equally rigorous demands on any academic fields under the grievance studies
umbrella.
You certainly couldn’t Sokal a university medical department.

Hide ↑
 L (Zero) says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:15 pm ~new~
“Scientists weren’t careful enough in the potential for misuse of the atomic bomb” was explicitly
used as an example in HPMOR, yet “racism played a role in the historical usage of the atomic
bomb” is assumed by many SSC commenters to be such an absurd claim it must be trolling. God
do I feel you.
Hide ↑
 Murphy says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:16 pm ~new~
No, I fully understand your position. And it is textbook Lysenkoism.
You just don’t like it put starkly.

You want anyone who produces results that are not politically acceptable or voices scientific
opinions that don’t fit with the dominant political ideology to remain silent or to be purged from
positions of influence. If any political officer hears about unacceptable results then it serves as
proof that they weren’t silent enough.
Sure, you don’t want to jail him or fine him, how very noble of you. You just want to remove him
from any position of influence and replace him with a nice, politically acceptable modern
incarnation of Trofim Lysenko.
Calling it a “duty to take care vs. a prohibition on an act.” doesn’t make it better. An ideological
purge remains an ideological purge and does not become less contemptible.
Making a big show of rolling your eyes and complaining about the temerity of the SSC commenters
to disagree with your factually incorrect claims doesn’t make your claims any more convincing.
In virology, right now you can download the full genetic sequence of smallpox from the NIH
website.
Nobody so much as suggested firing anyone senior at NIH over it.
Right now you can download papers that describe how to construct a virus, base by base from
whole cloth.
Nobody suggested removing any of the authors from positions of influence.
Right now, you can download papers on base-washing and how to construct long DNA or RNA
fragments.
Compared to that, suggesting that principles of genetics that apply to every other mammal almost
certainly apply to humans as well, that doesn’t even register.
But you don’t care, you’ve got your isolated demand for rigour and it’s utterly isolated to politically
unpopular results or positions.

Hide ↑
 Murphy says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:18 pm ~new~
@L (Zero)
A great deal of the community does not mirror EY’s views.
Neutron chain reactions were never going to stay secret.
The principle of nukes were not going to be kept secret no matter what they did.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 5:23 pm ~new~
@ Murphy – The duty does not stem from it being dominant or non-dominant, but from the
potential for harm. Characterizing it as “Lysenkoism” is absurd – not only did I clearly state that
the sanction should be limited to removal of his VP of research position, I also clearly stated that
the research itself should not be prohibited.

You’re jumping to an extreme which would be absurd in any other context – someone has a duty of
being careful in the handling of children could just as easily be characterized as Lysenkoism. If you
want to say that you don’t think the potential for harm warrants the existence of the duty, then say
so.
Hide ↑
 Murphy says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:44 pm ~new~
I also clearly stated that the research itself should not be prohibited.
I clearly state that the sanction should be limited to removal of his VP of research position
How very magnanimous.
So you merely make it so that only individuals who produce politically acceptable results can get
into senior positions, positions where they also strongly influence what research can happen at
their institution at all and make sure that you send a message that anyone who wants their career
to progress better make sure they only produce politically acceptable results.
handling of children
Grad students are adults, not chidren.
Again, going back to the previous post, in virology, right now you can download the full genetic
sequence of smallpox from the NIH website.
Nobody so much as suggested firing anyone senior at NIH over it.
Right now you can download papers that describe how to construct a virus, base by base from
whole cloth.
Nobody suggested removing any of the authors from positions of influence.
If you’re concerned about “harm” from publishing true things then that’s about a million times
more risky.
But you don’t care, you’ve got your isolated demand for rigour and it’s utterly isolated to politically
unpopular results or positions.
You want your purge and everything you are posting is hollow, thin justification based on your ,
again to stress this, factually incorrect beliefs about the demands placed on scientists in other
fields.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 7:06 pm ~new~
LightlyRow:
Do you think *all* people speaking about racism, racial differences, etc., are required to exhibit
that level of care, or is it only the ones who come to some particular set of conclusions or raise
some particluar set of issues?

Because I do not see much evidence of people who speak carelessly about race and racism getting
this kind of response, when they conclude that the black/white performance gap in education is
caused by white racism, or when they claim that calling the police on a black man is putting his life
in serious danger, or when they claim that there is no such thing as race, or that there are no
average cognitive differences between racial groups. Those claims often seem to be increasing
racial tensions—something that can plausibly cause enormous damage to the country. And indeed,
we’ve sometimes seen riots and looting as a result of that tension.
If your position applies a duty of being extra careful with words only to some people discussing
these issues, and by great good luck that duty just happens to only land on people with whom you
disagree on facts or morals or policy, then it will probably be difficult for those of us who do not
agree with you to see why this isn’t just an attempt to put a thumb on the scales of who is able to
speak in public.
Suppose you live someplace where supporters of the ruling party can say almost anything without
consequences, whereas opponents of the ruling party can avoid getting in trouble if they phrase
every criticism in the most neutral and careful way possible, never give an interview to any press
other than the state controlled press, and never associate with any dissidents. You will probably
not think that’s a place that has robust freedom of expression.

Hide ↑
June 18, 2020 at 1:19 am ~new~
Notallcommentators (observe whether I will get deleted for an inapropriate sarcasm :-). I hope I
understood your argument, without necessarily endorsing it.

Hide ↑
o Aapje says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:41 am ~new~
@LightlyRow
they can to legitimize white supremacist views.
This undermines your point completely, because if they will actually use anything, then it doesn’t
matter how careful you are. It won’t help to completely silence a discussion on a topic, only allow it
behind closed doors, lie to people about the facts that they believe supports their point of view,
etc, etc, because all of this will be interpreted as evidence of a conspiracy.
At a certain point you have to accept that you cannot actually control what other people believe. If
you don’t, your only choice is totalitarianism.

June 17, 2020 at 8:31 am ~new~
I disagree.
There are two groups – a) white supremacists highly motivated to use anything to increase racial
prejudices of the general population, and b) part of the general population that is inclined to
believe in spurious arguments confirming their racial prejudices, especially when they come from
respectable (e.g. academic) sources, as opposed to low status hairless thugs.


June 17, 2020 at 8:38 am ~new~
I’ve heard that it’s bad that Hsu was on Molyneux, but not that he said something untrue to
Molyneux.
June 17, 2020 at 8:54 am ~new~
I most assuredly do not want to opine on Hsu situation, not having done the research.
But vitriol expressed here by many comments towards LightlyRow for making imo correct
observation that white supremacists are highly motivated to twist results of genetic research to suit
their agenda is wholly inappropriate.

Hide ↑
 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:59 am ~new~
The “vitriol” is not directed at the observation, but at the implied conclusion that “because bad
actors might use your research badly, it is your responsibility to suppress your research”. Reading
the arguments against LightlyRow with that little charity is also inappropriate.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 10:48 am ~new~
I’m not sure how to review the Molyneux interview without somehow indirectly benefiting or
boosting Molyneux, and without having YouTube spam me with further links to Molyneux content I
don’t want to see.
If I knew how, I think I’d want to review that interview or at least its transcript.
Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 11:24 am ~new~
I’m not sure how to review the Molyneux interview without somehow indirectly benefiting or
boosting Molyneux
I’m not sure how to sell groceries to Stefan Molyneux without somehow indirectly benefiting
Molyneux. If he’s struggling 80 hrs/wk as a subsistence farmer, fewer people will see his podcasts.
Therefore…
…you need a better standard for cancellation, or you need to understand that you won’t be taken
seriously outside the cancel-happy bubble.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 11:44 am ~new~
@Simon_Jester
Ad-block and a private window. For extra security against Google linking your computer to it you
could use Opera’s VPN. Granted his video will still get an addition view, but I don’t see a way
around this.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 1:58 pm ~new~
@gbdub
The “vitriol” is not directed at the observation, but at the implied conclusion that “because bad actors
might use your research badly, it is your responsibility to suppress your research”.
Perhaps I will be corrected by the author him(her)self, but I do not think that this what he or she
wanted to say. Implied conclusion is probably implied only in your head.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 8:57 am ~new~
If you only consider listeners who have evil motives and will never change their minds on anything,
you can justify shutting down all discussion, because what purpose would any of it have?
Of course, there are also people listening who would like to understand the world better. People
who don’t know whether the black/white performance gap in schools is really due to some kind of
racism or is due to something else, and would like to have a better way of thinking about the
question. People who maybe would like to know why the poor Asian kids whose parents are fresh
off the boat from China do better getting into the local school magnet program than rich white
kids.
Knowledge has some purpose other than to simply reaffirm the beliefs of evil people.
June 17, 2020 at 9:20 am ~new~
I do not understand what any of this has to do with my comment.

Hide ↑
 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:01 am ~new~
spurious arguments confirming their racial prejudices
This bakes in two assumptions that weaken your argument. First, that Hsu’s arguments are
spurious. Second, that the audience is still interested in confirming preexisting biases. Which is
again placing the responsibility on Hsu, instead of the people engaging in motivated reasoning.
Victim blaming.
June 17, 2020 at 9:19 am ~new~
I have no opinion on whether Hsu´s arguments are spurious or not, and I do not blame him for
anything.
But I do assume that people are interested in confirming their preexisting biases, that is correct.
Hide ↑
 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:14 am ~new~
Well then what’s your point?
Everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias, but confirmation bias works just as well (heck, even
better) with true, useful information as it does with false information.
Some people have biases I would prefer they don’t. But if I have a piece of information that could
potentially support a “negative” bias, I don’t think it’s fair to force me to caveat the heck out of
every one of my statements (and certainly not fair to cancel me) just because those negative-bias
people exist. We definitely don’t apply this standard rigorously anywhere.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 11:21 am ~new~
People tend to confirm their own biases, but that’s not the *only* thing people do. Some people
also update their beliefs, overcome their existing biases, come to understand the world better. The
best way I know to enable that is to allow wide-ranging discussions about important issues without
shutting anyone down or firing anyone or any of that crap. This will inevitably allow some people to
say dumb or evil things. We do not have an option marked “make sure people only say smart and
good things.” Instead, we can decide to what extent there will be mechanisms to punish people
saying things some powerful person doesn’t like, knowing that sometimes, those mechanisms will
be used to punish people who are saying dumb/evil things, and other times, they’ll be used to
punish people who are disagreeing with the acceptable dumb/evil things someone is saying.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 2:34 pm ~new~
@gbdub
I honestly think that people should ” caveat the heck out of every one of their statements”, when it
comes to sensitive topics like genetic racial differences.
Now, caveat: I am also against cancelling those who fail to do that with twitter mobs. In fact my
support for nuance sort of inevitably leads me to oppose twitter mobs.

Hide ↑
 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:39 pm ~new~
when it comes to sensitive topics like genetic racial differences.
But the determination of “sensitive topics” is not being judged in a viewpoint neutral way, as others
have noted here. Careless and untrue statements on the same or similar topics are allowed without
caveat, so long as they are on the “right” side and support the right biases.
Hide ↑
June 18, 2020 at 1:27 am ~new~
@gbdub
So? Careless and untrue statements from the leftwing are bad. Careless and untrue statements
from the rightwing are also bad.

Hide ↑
 Aapje says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:09 pm ~new~
@AlesZiegler
part of the general population that is inclined to believe in spurious arguments confirming their
racial prejudices, especially when they come from respectable (e.g. academic) sources, as opposed to
low status hairless thugs.
It seems to be perfectly acceptable in academia to spread spurious arguments confirming racial
prejudices different to the ones you are referring to.
The perceived respectability of academia is not a given. If academia only allow subjective or
spurious claims that favor radicals and moderates from one side, it is going to make people from
the other side angry at academia in general and disbelieve them, not just on this topic.
And this anger will not just be by white supremacists or those with great prejudice that is easily
validated, but also by people who don’t want radicals to be left unchallenged or want academia to
be a think tank for one side of politics. The latter group is surely far greater.
Don’t come complaining to me if/when ever more people stop presuming that scientific claims are
correct unless proven otherwise, but incorrect by default.

June 18, 2020 at 1:23 am ~new~
Um, I totally agree that deep entanglement between social sciences and social justice activism is
damaging to the credibility of the former, but that is for a different discussion.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 5:30 pm ~new~
This undermines your point completely, because if they will actually use anything, then it doesn’t
matter how careful you are. It won’t help to completely silence a discussion on a topic, only allow it
behind closed doors, lie to people about the facts that they believe supports their point of view, etc,
etc, because all of this will be interpreted as evidence of a conspiracy.
At a certain point you have to accept that you cannot actually control what other people believe. If
you don’t, your only choice is totalitarianism.
It does matter how careful you are. The anti-vax movement is pretty bad, but it would be
significantly worse is vaccine researchers were less careful than they were. It can always get
worse. Your only choice is not totalitarianism – there are gradations possible in this world. It isn’t
life or death, you can have different thresholds of responsibilities, different sanctions, things can
depend on the context.

o viVI_IViv says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:47 am ~new~

And this doesn’t apply to Critical Theory and grievance studies professors who rant about the
heteronormative white patriarchy all the time with zero evidence. In their case, it’s muh academic
freedom.
According to your logic we must approve the Catholic Church censoring Galileo: after all he
carelessly disseminated his dangerous research, not devoid of factual errors, which could have
been easily used by heretics and atheists to promote immorality, sin and upheaval the social order.
Hell, two hundred years after Galileo, one certain Marx guy created a materialistic ideology which
caused 100 million deaths and incalculable suffering. Clearly it would have been much harder for
him to argue his case if people still believed that planets were being pushed around the sky by
angels. And in fact his followers were the first ones to pollute the Moon with the hubris of Man.
The Inquisition should have persecuted these heliocentrists harder! /s

June 17, 2020 at 10:54 am ~new~
White supremacists have managed to kill, like, a lot of people.
I’m pretty confident that in terms of actual violence dealt unto human beings, the ideas promoted
by what you call “grievance studies” professors will amount to an ineffectual fart in a hurricane.
They may well even result in a net decrease in human suffering.
I know which group I’m more worried about.
Well, I’m not so sure about “Critical Theory,” since I’m not even sure what you think that even
means. “Grievance studies” I can at least parse


June 17, 2020 at 11:35 am ~new~
I know which group I’m more worried about.
The relevant groups are, first, white supremacists who will turn violent if and only if a scientist or
professor says the wrong thing, and antifascists/SJWs who place similarly high weight on the
teachings of their tribe’s academicians.
I have my own suspicion as to which group is larger and more dangerous, and I suspect it’s not the
same as yours.
 zqed says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:20 pm ~new~
The game is played by claiming without evidence that the person we’d like to cancel today belongs
to a larger group of people who did some terrible things in the past, no matter how strenuous the
connection seems: we can just claim that they have a history of disguising their arguments to
avoid detection.
If that fails, we can still claim that she is a secret shieldmaiden of that group, and if that fails gish-
gallop into “some output of hers is sufficiently inspiring to that accursed group that she might as
well be part of the group anyway”. If she does not explicitly protest when these groups allegedly
(again without evidence) cite her research to justify their abominable behavior, we can treat that
as sufficient cause to get her cancelled. If she does protest, we can always claim that it’s another
instance of the accursed group shifting arguments to prevent detection. Let’s play the game.
The “grievance studies” professors are really communist entryists, who have a long history of
creatively shifting their justifications. It’s hard to deny that communists get inspired by grievance
studies research all the time. And those godless communists are really awful: don’t you know that
communists killed 100 million people, even more than the white supremacists!? Good thing Dr.
Mulling is no longer the president of the American Anthropological Association, we’d all have to
form a mob to get her removed now. You see, it’s all about not willfully lending moral support to
immoral people…

June 17, 2020 at 1:21 pm ~new~
I never thought leopards would cancel my face!

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 12:55 pm ~new~
White supremacists have managed to kill, like, a lot of people.
Could you fill that out?
Apartheid South Africa was a white supremacist society, but the number of people they killed was
very small, relative to the population, compared to the number killed by black on black violence
elsewhere in Africa. Similarly for the post Civil War American South, unless what you mean by “a
lot” is “a few thousand over a period of decades.”
If we are thinking in terms of ideologies that have really killed large numbers, tens or hundreds of
millions, I can only think of two plausible claims for white supremacists — the Belgian Congo under
Leopold and the slave trade. I’m not sure that either of those depended on the belief that blacks
were innately inferior to whites, although it provided some support. If you look at Kipling’s poem
“The White Man’s Burden,” it’s clear that his support for imperialism is based on cultural, not
genetic, differences — the burden is the obligation to raise the uncivilized primitives up to our
level. And we have lots of examples of non-racial slavery in history.
The essential requirements for both of those crimes was not a racial difference in genetics but in
power.
Did you have other examples that I haven’t thought of in mind?
Also, do you think the connection between research showing differences in IQ distribution by race
and what killed lots and lots of people is closer than the connection between academic Marxists and
communist states, which killed many millions of people?

 viVI_IViv says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:56 pm ~new~
— the Belgian Congo under Leopold and the slave trade. I’m not sure that either of those depended on
the belief that blacks were innately inferior to whites, although it provided some support.
If I understand correctly, the mass killings and atrocities in Belgian Congo weren’t motivated by
any grand white supremacist ideology. In fact they were mostly carried out by black people of
some tribe against black people of some other tribe.
Belgian Congo wasn’t originally an actual colony of the Belgian Kingdom, it was a personal property
of King Leopold who ruled it for profit using a mercenary army of cutthroats of various nationalities
and local militias who seized the opportunity to settle old tribal conflicts. Eventually the place
became so much of a shitshow that the European colonial powers pressured the Belgian
government to seize the colony from their own king and run it properly, according to “White Man’s
Burden” principles.
Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 3:01 pm ~new~
Belgian Congo wasn’t an actual colony of the Belgian Kingdom, it was a personal property of King
Leopold who ruled it using a mercenary army made of cutthroats of various nationalities and local
militias who seized the opportunity to settle old tribal conflicts.
Which raises the question: was it a state or anarcho-capitalist?
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 3:05 pm ~new~
It had an archon: Leopold II.

Hide ↑
o Incurian says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:58 am ~new~
Censorship is great and all, but you need to be careful where you talk about it because even
though you and me just want to censor the really dangerous ideas, once you release censorship
into the wild it gets misused by every crank with an axe to grind.
o Rinrin says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:18 am ~new~
This is an isolated demand for rigor. It’s also a thinly veiled intimidation tactic that’s saying we
won’t come for you if your work is hard to understand by the public, but if you engage in popular
science we’ll lynch you.
“Religion poisons everything.” It’s funny how that doesn’t change.

June 17, 2020 at 10:59 am ~new~
Nah, it’s more like:
If your research shows that left-handed people have on average two IQ points when controlling for
all other factors, we’ll leave you alone.
If your research then becomes an excited talking point among people whose entire political
ideology revolves around the belief that left-handed people and their brutish stupid atavistic ways
are threatening to cause the Decline and Fall of The West, and if you do nothing to alert these
ideologues to the fact that no, a two-point IQ difference cannot cause that… Then at some point,
we’re gonna associate you with that belief system, the one that’s getting a ton of mileage out of
your results with no opposition from you.
And if the belief system starts doing nasty things to lefties, then you are going to be held, in some
small way, partially to blame.
Again, this isn’t about suppressing the truth, it’s about not willfully lending moral support to
immoral people who have a long history of creatively shifting their justifications to keep finding
excuses for horrible behavior.

June 17, 2020 at 12:28 pm ~new~
Simon Jester:
This looks like an isolated demand for rigor to me. I do not believe you or many other people hold
to this standard when it is inconvenient to their views.
Mainstream voices in the US right now routinely claim that the black/white gap in school
performance is due to white racism. They widely report both true and false claims about police
misconduct toward blacks. This surely increases racial tensions and sometimes leads to riots. As
best I can tell, nobody ever thinks this merits deplatforming. Intemperate or inflamatory
statements, getting basic facts wrong–no problem.
At the same time, as best I can tell from your writing, you object when someone correctly reports
the known facts about racial IQ differences–at least, if the do so in a way that might even
conceivably lend any support for white racists[1]. The slightest ambiguity or intemperate language
is a reason for cancellation–even talking about that data in the wrong company is reason for
cancellation.
This isn’t a concern for people being careful how they discuss touchy topics–it if were, you’d care
when *anyone* discussed touchy topics. This is an attempt to put a thumb on the scales of what
people are allowed to talk about and read, in order to help people and policies you approve to rise
in status relative to the ones you disapprove.
The result of doing that has been, and will continue to be, less-informed public discussions about
critical issues that we as a country really need to get right, and a continued, justified loss of
confidence in academic and media institutions that are visibly purging people for having the wrong
political views or reaching the wrong conclusions.

[1] Remember, if you report that Eastern European Jews and Asians have a higher average IQ than
whites, this is probably because you are a white supremacist.

 Matt M says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:36 pm ~new~
Indeed. The same people who are insisting it is absolutely vital that anyone discussing racial IQ
differences take a significant amount of care in being absolutely clear in the evidence for their
statements, the implications, etc. don’t demand even the slightest bit of care from someone
discussing racial IQ differences… whose position on it is “they don’t exist and anyone who thinks
they do is a racist.”
The demand isn’t “take care when discussing this topic” so much as it is “take care when discussing
this topic and coming to a conclusion that is outside the mainstream.” So the problem isn’t the
discussion or the topic, it’s the conclusion…

Hide ↑
 Aapje says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:25 pm ~new~
@Simon_Jester
And if the belief system starts doing nasty things to lefties, then you are going to be held, in some
small way, partially to blame.
This strongly implies that you are perfectly willing to accept academia spreading beliefs that result
in nasty things happening to people (that you perceive to be) on the right.
Again, this isn’t about suppressing the truth, it’s about not willfully lending moral support to
immoral people who have a long history of creatively shifting their justifications to keep finding
excuses for horrible behavior.
Unless those immoral people are in your camp and hurt your outgroup.
 Dan L says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:32 pm ~new~
I strongly advise you to reread his post.

Hide ↑
 zero says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:40 pm ~new~
“Lefties” in this case refers to left-handed people in the hypothetical.

Hide ↑
o Edward Scizorhands says:

June 17, 2020 at 8:30 am ~new~
This must be some meme going around. We already had one person show up with this:
Anyone doing scientific work on race has a responsibility to be extremely careful with their media
appearances, for much the same reason that anyone working on smallpox samples has a
responsibility to be extremely careful with their containment procedures.
 Matt M says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:41 am ~new~
I wonder if the same people saying this would unequivocally and without qualification agree that
the majority of responsibility for COVID being a global pandemic rests with the leaders of the CCP
for not being sufficiently careful in securing it and allowing it to spread.

June 17, 2020 at 11:04 am ~new~
If I thought that COVID came from a disease research lab, hell yes I would say that the majority of
the responsibility for COVID belonged with those who made a containment breach at that lab likely.
Instead, I believe that the disease spread to humans from animals, and that the Chinese
government made a good faith effort to contain the virus but, unsurprisingly and like almost
everyone else on Earth, failed. COVID is very very hard to contain, for reasons that are already
well known. Moreover, awareness of the salient characteristics of COVID takes time to percolate;
the reasons it’s harder to contain than, say, SARS are learned only through experience.
I strongly suspect that by the time the Chinese government realized how hard they would have to
work to keep COVID fully contained within China, COVID had already escaped China. The Chinese
government almost certainly could have handled it better, but a lot of other governments have
screwed up too.
All things considered, I don’t think they could really have prevented the outbreak of a respiratory
droplet-borne disease with a two-week latency period. Not short of having a time traveler show up
when there were only like ten infected patients in the whole world and single them all out to be
locked in plastic bubbles for a few months.

 Aapje says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:35 pm ~new~
The danger of wet markets has been known for a long time. They chose not to shut them down.
They also tried to cover up the outbreak, initially.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 5:41 pm ~new~
that the Chinese government made a good faith effort to contain the virus
That is untrue. Their initial action were to deny, censor, terrorize people who spotted it and
coverup the problem.
They also are fully responsible for setting up system that works in this way.
Hide ↑
51. No One In Particular says:

June 16, 2020 at 8:21 pm ~new~
This week, some students at Michigan State are trying to cancel him.
I expect better from you, Scott. Take that as a compliment, or insult, or both, as you wish. If
students want to get him fired, why not just say “Students want to get him fired”? You also don’t
discuss who these students are, how many there are, what power they have, etc.
They point an interview he did on an alt-right podcast
You’re missing a “to” between “point” and “an”.
You can read the case being made against him here, although keep in mind a lot of it is distorted and
taken out of context, and you can read his response here.
While I can understand a reluctance to stand on principle when one’s job is on the line, shouldn’t
there be a social norm that anyone childish enough to put their complaint in a Twitter thread
should be simply dismissed out of hand? “Hey, I have this super-serious point to make, and I’m
going to split it into 144-character bits so it can be read with thirty-years-old technology that is
trendy for some reason.”

If you support him, you can sign the petition to keep him on here.
Things that come to mind when reading this are “dollar auction”, “virtue signalling”, and
“slacktivism”. I have virtually no connection to Michigan, academia, or race studies. There is no
rational reason for MSU to take my opinion into consideration. I guess your implicit position is “I
expect MSU to act irrationally regarding this matter, and I encourage you to manipulate that
irrationality to the goals that I favor”. Kinda goes against the “Guided By The Beauty Of Our
Weapons” thing.
o Spookykou says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:20 pm ~new~
A note of personal preference, including a typo in a critical post feels rude in a way the typo
correction alone would not.

June 16, 2020 at 9:48 pm ~new~
I thought “cancel” made the dynamic clearer than “fire”. I agree I’m a little annoyed at a lot of the
ways it’s used, but I can’t think of a real argument against using it, so I kept it.
I signal-boosted the petition because Steve asked me to. I also asked him whether it was worth
having non-academics sign it. He says that it is, and since he is a high-ranking official at a
university, I assume he knows more about how to influence high-ranking officials at universities
than I do.
It’s possible he’s just wrong and very bad at PR (see: the current situation), but I figured I would
give him the benefit of the doubt and let him coordinate his own defense.
 keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:19 pm ~new~
I, for one, would have appreciated at least *some* description of what “cancel” means here. Do
they want MSU to relegate him from VPR to a regular faculty position? Do they want MSU to revoke
his tenure and fire him? Do they want MSU to write a Strongly Worded Letter that all the thousands
of students can retweet? Do they want Twitter and YouTube to suspend his accounts? All of these
are reasonably described by the word “cancel”, and while some of them seem like overreaction, not
all of them obviously are.

o 10240 says:
June 16, 2020 at 10:01 pm ~new~

There is no rational reason for MSU to take my opinion into consideration. I guess your implicit
position is “I expect MSU to act irrationally regarding this matter, and I encourage you to
manipulate that irrationality to the goals that I favor”.
I’d say either they act rationally and evaluate the situation independently. In that case signatures
don matter.
Or they act in a silly way and just look at whose mob is the bigger. That’s unfortunate, but if your
side doesn’t play the game, it loses.
Edit: Or (and this is I suspect often a pretty common scenario) they prefer to evaluate the situation
independently, but if they see a big mob demanding one thing, and few people opposing it, they
may feel the need to cave. If they see that there is broad support for both positions, they can
decide themselves.
o drethelin says:
June 16, 2020 at 10:11 pm ~new~
Buddy keep up with the times. The President of the United States is using twitter! It’s a big deal.
People get fired and hired regularly from stuff posted on there.
o TomMustang says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:43 am ~new~
IDK, Tyler Cowen thinks that Twitter is one of the best, if not the best sources of info. There is lots
of great stuff on Twitter. I think it’s fine.
BUT
Lets, asssume you’re right, Twitter is silly.
Well then, where should he respond to his criticism? If not Twitter then where?
Is Facebook more prestigious? Would his Facebook page get as many views?
Should he hang flyers around campus?
Will a post on his blog get as much attention?
Whatever you think if the “character limit” Twitter was the best way to bring the unfairness to the
publics’ attention.
If not Twitter, what would you have him do?

June 17, 2020 at 7:20 am ~new~
Tyler Cowen thinks that Twitter is one of the best, if not the best sources of info
Seriously? I would consider it possible if reduced to some subset, like “about ongoing events” or
“personal opinions” or something, but such broad statement is clearly absurd.


June 17, 2020 at 10:41 am ~new~
IDK, Tyler Cowen thinks that Twitter is one of the best, if not the best sources of info. There is lots of
great stuff on Twitter. I think it’s fine.
I have no idea who Tyler Cowen isto , so while this looks kind of like argument to authority, it’s
lacking the “authority” part. Twitter is a terrible source of information. It can be a source of links to
information, but actually providing information is not something it does well.

Well then, where should he respond to his criticism?
I assume by “him” you mean Hsu. But my criticism was primarily directed towards the students.
Is Facebook more prestigious? Would his Facebook page get as many views?
The issue isn’t prestige or views, it’s what’s a proper medium. Twitter is, quite simply, not a proper
medium to have an in-depth conversation. Full stop. For over two decades, we’ve had a protocol
for transferring text over the internet. It even allows hyperlinks. If you can’t figure out what this
hypertext transfer protocol is called, you don’t belong at college. If you want to include a link to a
website or word document in a tweet, that’s one thing. But posting your argument in tweets is
ridiculous.
Whatever you think if the “character limit” Twitter was the best way to bring the unfairness to the
publics’ attention.
I assume you mean “think of” rather than “think if”. That typo, plus the lack of a comma after
“character limit”, makes your sentence hard to parse. And the apostrophe in “publics'” is in the
wrong place. Even if Twitter was the most effective strategy, there’s still wider issues such as
participating in the degradation of discourse.

June 17, 2020 at 11:06 am ~new~
Literally the only thing I know about Tyler Cowen is that I think he had an argument with Scott
about preferences and psychology, and from what I remember I’m pretty sure Scott is right and
this Cowen guy is wrong.

 Nick says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:22 am ~new~
Are you sure you aren’t thinking of Bryan Caplan?

 Dan L says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:01 pm ~new~
Confusingly, here is Cowen weighing in on that disagreement with Caplan.
Cowen comments on Scott’s work from time to time, with varying levels of approval. (And vice
versa.) Depends on the topic.

Hide ↑
 Nick says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:09 pm ~new~
@Dan L
Huh, I missed that post at the time. I only read MR on and off. Looks like Tyler agrees with Scott,
though, with some criticism for his approach.

Hide ↑
52. gallowstree says:

June 16, 2020 at 7:37 pm ~new~
Most of the people who are ‘just asking questions’ and ‘support free inquiry’ when it comes to
genetics, race, intelligence, etc. have not actually done the work of seriously grounding themselves
in the science and literature. They’d rather idly speculate and have provocative-sounding
conversations. Weirdly, this trait is often stronger in people who do have (different) areas of
incredibly strong domain knowledge. The reverse thought experiment is illustrative – we would
think it was very peculiar for a geneticist to go on podcasts and carry on about research in
astrophysics or quantum mechanics.
I don’t think this is something that is necessarily cancel-worthy, but to pretend that this is all
totally normal behavior for an academic is not accurate.
(P.S. And as other commenters have pointed out, claiming that Molyneux wasn’t well known as an
alt-right figure in 2017 strains credulity.)
EDIT: I missed in his bio that he had transitioned over to do some computational work in
genetics/genomics. So he has more grounding than some other ‘race and genetics’ provocateurs.
But his publication record is very sparse (5 papers total I can find), and most of it has to do with
polygenic risk scores which are of…questionable utility, to put it charitably.

o GearRatio says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:43 pm ~new~

The reverse thought experiment is illustrative – we would think it was very peculiar for a geneticist
to go on podcasts and carry on about research in astrophysics or quantum mechanics.
Not really. Shuffle your specialties and that’s what Neil Degrasse Tyson is. Nobody thinks it’s weird
until it’s a banned thought.

 ECD says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:49 pm ~new~
I’m confused, I know Degrasse Tyson as mostly a space guy and a preliminary look on his wiki
page lists his degrees as all being in astronomy and astrophysics.


June 16, 2020 at 7:56 pm ~new~
He thinks he’s a qualified historian on the side.
I’m 90% confident there’s a screen cap where he’s standing in front of a Powerpoint slide of this
infamous chart to support atheism. Did I imagine that, guys?

June 16, 2020 at 8:26 pm ~new~
I find your sarcasm in lieu of an explicit point unseemly.

Hide ↑
 ECD says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:30 pm ~new~
I mean, maybe, but: “I can’t agree to the claims by atheists that I’m one of that community. I
don’t have the time, energy, interest of conducting myself that way… I’m not trying to convert
people. I don’t care.”
The closest I can find is his essay “Holy Wars,” which includes some stuff that might be moderately
bad history of near New Athiest type, but also states:
“Successful researchers do not get their science from their religious beliefs. On the other hand, the
methods of science have little or nothing to contribute to ethics, inspiration, morals, beauty, love,
hate, or aesthetics. These are vital elements of civilized life, and are central to the concerns of
nearly every religion. What it all means is that for many scientists there is no conflict of interest.”
Hide ↑

June 16, 2020 at 9:03 pm ~new~
@ECD: Cool, thanks for that quote.
And for clarification, that wasn’t sarcasm. That was a Bayesian statement by someone with
Aspergers, adjusting “I was sure I…” down based on knowledge of memory fallibility.
Hide ↑
 GearRatio says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:54 am ~new~
In interview settings, he will talk about nuclear power, AI, global warming and genetics, to name a
few I’ve heard him talking about. Here’s him talking about global warming, nuclear, automation
and civil war history while being interviewed by somebody a lot of people consider an alt-right
racist; no eyes were batted.

 ECD says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:34 am ~new~
I mean, maybe…but I’m not seeing any references to Adam Carolla as alt-right in his wiki page,
unlike Molyneux. The closest it comes is a couple of controversies that are pretty clearly him being
an idiot more than anything else (which obviously doesn’t mean he couldn’t/isn’t a racist).
Hide ↑
June 16, 2020 at 7:52 pm ~new~
Degrasse Tyson largely sticks in physics and space, and even then is routinely mocked for holding
forth on subjects he knows very little about (to be fair, some of this is just the inherent suspicion
scientists have of any researcher who gets famous and/or gives a TED Talk).
 GearRatio says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:17 pm ~new~
Degrasse Tyson largely sticks in physics and space, and even then is routinely mocked for holding
forth on subjects he knows very little about
He largely sticks to physics and space, but is routinely mocked for something he barely does,
somehow? I would think the part where he’s known for getting out of his lane might be indicative
of him getting out of his lane.
Also, and very importantly: getting routinely mocked is not comparable in any substantial way to
what Hsu is getting, which is something close to “let’s slur this guy with the agreed-upon ‘worst
thing to be’ title and more-or-less destroy his career”. If Scott was telling us to protest Hsu getting
made fun of on twitter and nothing else, nobody would care; if people were trying to hurt NGT in
substantial ways for having an opinion on nuclear, I’d be similarly pissed.

 keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:22 pm ~new~
Nearly all of his TV show was rightly mocked for its ignorance of the history. I mean, saying that
Giordano Bruno is some sort of ignored scientist, and saying that Newton was good and Hooke bad,
is really a whole lot of buying unthinkingly into lots of propaganda.

Hide ↑
o Gerry Quinn says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:32 pm ~new~
Well, if he is ignorant on the subject, it should make it all the easier to prove him wrong, no?
June 16, 2020 at 10:04 pm ~new~
He runs a genetics company and he was on the first team to create a working polygenic predictor
for height. It’s possible there are levels beyond his, but the highest-level people I know seem to
endorse him (check the names on his petition – Robert Plomin is one of them).
June 16, 2020 at 10:54 pm ~new~
I had heard a radio story a while back about a company that was using unvalidated and proprietary
polygenic risk scores to overpromise results to prospective parents using IVF…I didn’t realize that
was Hsu’s company: https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/11/08/132018/polygenic-score-ivf-
embryo-dna-tests-genomic-prediction-gattaca/
The admittedly alarmist headline aside, the quotes and details make me feel more confident in my
appraisal of his work.

June 17, 2020 at 1:05 pm ~new~
I read the article. It says that some geneticists disagree with what they are doing, but it doesn’t
provide any evidence that they cannot provide the service they claim to provide.
So how do you know they are overpromising?

o Talexander Urok says:
June 16, 2020 at 10:58 pm ~new~

The reverse thought experiment is illustrative – we would think it was very peculiar for a geneticist
to go on podcasts and carry on about research in astrophysics or quantum mechanics.
Maybe all you’re observing here is that some disciplines make it into a controversy and others
don’t? Did any physicists care that John Von Neumann didn’t have any credentials in physics, only
chemical engineering and mathematics? There are plenty of crank physicists on the History
Channel, but I believe the complaint there is that they don’t know what they’re talking about, not
that they are “invading” other disciplines.

 TomMustang says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:55 am ~new~
I think theoretical physicists are special in that they are smart enough to do whatever they want.
Off the top of my head, I believe Scott mentions how absurdly smart they are at the beginning of
“the parable of talents, but he’s definitely said that many times. Theoretical physics is weird in that
lots of people without a background pop-in, while lots of people with backgrounds in theoretical
physics do amazing things in other fields.
Smart people gonna smart.
If you’re smart enough to be a publishable theoretical physicist, you will probably be awesome at
lots of things too.
The salient feature here isn’t degrees, it’s IQ.

 boylermaker says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:45 am ~new~
Replace “smart” with “mathy”, and I think you’re on to something. Every discipline needs math-
ronin to ride in and and do your equations for you, and theoretical physicists are likely better-
equipped than average to do this. Genetics is a subfield of biology that is especially amenible to
gas-law style idealization, and so math is especially useful in that context.
I would hesitate to say “smart” exactly because I have seen too many things like physicists trying
to come in and solve biology by things like the physics of glass cooling [not a joke; also maybe
paywalled, but the abstract will give you all you need], or whatever nonsense-du-jour Nassim Taleb
is spouting today about GM crops. (Taleb is admittedly not a physicist, but people on the borderline
between statistics and economics have contributed-via-math much more to biology than physicists,
so I think it’s fair to lump in in the general category).

o Murphy says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:14 am ~new~

polygenic risk scores
As a bioinformatician, I kinda dislike how polygenic risk scores get used. They can be informative
when used properly.
But they also often get used as a fallback form of data dredging for people who couldn’t p-hack any
more interesting results.
I think some of it is an artefact of how a handful of the most commonly used tools like plink output
their results. One thing I always have to stress when talking to our grad students is that when
plink spits out a low p-value variant it’s very very common for people to get fixated on that specific
variant… when in reality it’s most likely not that variant itself doing anything but rather something
in the surrounding haplotype blocks.
Polygenic risk scores tend to replicate terribly across populations for this reason. Because of course
various common snps are associated with completely different blocks.
In practice it means that if you are using a polygenic risk score to check someone’s risk of [x] you
need to use different tests depending on the population of the subject…. which is apparently
politically unacceptable now even in medical tests with a solid statistical grounding in a manner
that even a couple of years ago people would have called an absurd Strawman because apparently
admitting any average physical difference between populations, even when medically relevant is
politically unacceptable.
For the record I strongly oppose Lysenkoism in all it’s forms. If you aren’t allowed come to a
politically unpopular conclusion then any politically acceptable conclusions you do publish are
meaningless.
 Christopher Chang says:

June 17, 2020 at 7:15 pm ~new~
plink developer (and direct collaborator with Stephen Hsu) here.
It is long past time that I created an updated tutorial and FAQ; I’ll try to include an explicit warning
against the common misinterpretation you describe. If you’ve noticed other common pitfalls, feel
free to elaborate on them either here or in a direct email to me.

June 17, 2020 at 7:29 pm ~new~
@Christopher Chang
If you are willing and able I’d be very appreciative if you can answer my concerns in the following
three posts as to Stephen Hsu’s work and company:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/16/open-thread-156-25/#comment-916234
(Please note with respect to the issue posed in the third link: I have a tic-related obsessive-
compulsive disorder. While this has been an annoying impediment at times, it also gave me a
facility with basic arithmetic and an interest in digit-sum mathematics. Had I chosen to become a
mathematician it is quite likely that my tic-related OCD would have been a source of inspiration.)
Thanks,
Anonymousskimmer
 Murphy says:
June 18, 2020 at 1:21 am ~new~
Hi
I wasn’t expecting my sentiment to reach a plink developer!
I suspect just adding a line to the FAQ won’t catch peoples attention much unfortunately. I’d
suggest a line in the text output or a line somehow specifying an approximate estimated interval….
but I suspect there’s a thousand other explicit clarifications that people suggest and it’s not
practical to include all the caveats.
Congrats on writing one of the most used/useful tools in Bioinformatics!

o BlindKungFuMaster says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:42 am ~new~

Steve Hsu predicted the sample sizes necessary to create polygenic riskscores that capture most of
the genetic variance in certain traits. At the time the field was all over the place in discussions of
the “missing heritability”.
Then he validated that prediction with a polygenic risk score that captures most of the genetic
variance in height.
Frankly, while height might not be one of them, there are a lot of traits where capturing most of
the heritable variance by a prs is extremely high utility.
Your objections would have sounded reasonable five years ago. Now, they are just wrong.
53. gbdub says:

June 16, 2020 at 6:44 pm ~new~
This was supposed to be a culture-war free open thread
Aren’t fractional threads usually CW allowed? Or were you planning on making this one a special
exception?
o GearRatio says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:07 pm ~new~
Special exception. He thought things were getting too heated lately and was considering telling
everyone to knock it off temporarily.

 Gerry Quinn says:

June 17, 2020 at 7:48 am ~new~
And then CW came knocking on the door…

 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:01 am ~new~
Where did he say this? And if he meant it, I hope he reconsiders. The Culture War is very much live
and immediately relevant right now, and I much appreciate a place to talk about it where more
than one opinion is allowed

 Nick says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:04 am ~new~
From 156:
5. Speaking of protests, the open threads have been getting pretty intense lately. I realize some awful
stuff has been going on, and emotions are really high, but I want everyone to take a deep breath and
try to calm down a little bit before saying anything you’ll regret later. I will be enforcing the usually-
poorly-enforced ban on culture war topics in this thread with unrecorded deletions. I may or may
not suspend the next one or two hidden threads to give everyone a chance to calm down. I hope
everybody is staying safe and sane during these difficult times.
I take “I may or may not suspend the next one or two hidden threads” together with 156.25’s “This
was supposed to be a culture-war free open thread, but I guess the ship has sailed on that one” to
say Scott was definitely leaning toward making this thread culture war free after all, and when the
Hsu thing came up decided he couldn’t do that consistently.

 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:10 am ~new~
Gotcha. I either missed that last sentence, or interpreted it to mean “open threads might not be
posted at all”.
Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 8:11 am ~new~
I think his goal was mainly “stop talking about BLM-related stuff.”
Hide ↑
o No One In Particular says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:27 pm ~new~
Do you mean “fractious”?


June 17, 2020 at 8:25 am ~new~
No, fractional. This is 156¼.

 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:02 am ~new~
Thatisthejoke.gif
54. relative-energy says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:34 pm ~new~
Scott, it’s really good of you to stand up for Hsu like this. Thanks for doing it!
o Matt C says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:30 pm ~new~
Seconded.

June 16, 2020 at 7:56 pm ~new~
Thirded.
June 17, 2020 at 8:02 am ~new~
+1
 Nick says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:06 am ~new~
+1
Hide ↑
 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:11 am ~new~
Sixthed, and dammit if they come for Scott we riot.

Hide ↑
55. cassander says:

June 16, 2020 at 6:26 pm ~new~
So I need help with a topic that’s certainly not culture-warry at all. Which god should I worship?
In the forgotten realms, of course. Some friends are doing a pandemic themed 5e game set in
Waterdeep, and I’m trying to come up with an interesting angle (both from a mechanical and
character perspective) on a necromanticly oriented character can comply with a mandate to “You
know, like tone down the murder hobo this time…” (the last time this group played was in high
school, and we were VERY murder hobo-y). In previous editions, cleric was the way to go for
necromancy but I know nothing of 5th edition, so who’s got recommendations for interesting
builds? Or any tips about what I should know that’s different in 5e from 3.5
o Plumber says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:48 pm ~new~
I’d have my PC worship Tymora, the goddess of good luck (after Tyche split ib two).
Dice as holy symbol.
“Please baby please, Papa needs a brand new pair of shoes!” as prayer.
My favorite 5e ‘build’ is for “Hans d’Shovel (back-story here)
Race: Standard Human
Background: Folk Hero
Class: Barbarian
STR:19, DEX:12, CON:12, INT:10 WIS:10, CHA:11
Skills: Animal Handling, Athletics, Perception, Survival
Second Level
Class: Barbarian
Third to Sixth Level
Class: Fighter
Subclass: Champion
Fighting Style: Great Weapon Fighting
ASI: +1 to DEX
Seventh to 9th Level

Class: Rogue
Subclass: Swashbuckler
Additional Skill: Stealth
Expertise in: Perception, and Stealth
Levels 10 to 16:
Class: Fighter to 11th level
Fighting Style Archery,
ASI’s: +1 DEX, +1 INT, +1 STR
Levels 17 – 20
Class: Rogue to 7th level
ASI: +2 DEX
Expertise in: Athletics, and Thieves tools

o ECD says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:57 pm ~new~
School of Necromancy Wizard is probably what you’re looking for.
A circle of Spores Druid, or Death Domain (if your DM allows it) Cleric would be alternatives that
maintain a necromantic vibe and powers.
On specific builds, it depends on group and goal, but for a caster you can’t go wrong focusing on
their spellcasting attribute, with con and dex as secondary stats. For a spellcaster, pumping the
first ASIs into your spellcasting until you get to 20 is probably the right choice as it ups spell DC
and attacks. Then feats depends on your interests and party.
I tend to view the wizard base class as strong enough that multi-classing isn’t worth it.
 cassander says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:16 pm ~new~
animate dead (the spell) seems pretty minimally useful. are there ways to make raising the dead
viable in 5e yet or will I need to wait for the inevitable splat books?
 ECD says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:32 pm ~new~
Animate dead and minionmancy generally are rather overpowered in 5e due to the bounded
accuracy. Additionally, remember that because you control them, you can also equip them and
they aren’t stuck with the gear listed. Depending on wealth, or loot, you can have your skeletons
outfitted with half-plate (AC 17, given their dex) and wielding longbows (only +4 to attacks but
1d8+2+proficiency bonus (minimum 3 maximum 5).
Managing it can (reportedly, I don’t play minionmancers, as I find the management painful) be
rough, but if you’ve got enough room to deploy, it can get powerful fairly fast, especially as you
can cast it multiple times. The real limits are your max control number, time and money for
equipment.
However, the other players may not love sitting and watching you spend as much time as everyone
else put together to do your four (note you can maintain control over more than you can summon
with one level 3 slot, so as prep you’d cast, short rest and use arcane recovery to get the level 3
slot back, recast and have four, then in future you can maintain all four with one slot in the
morning, then short rest to get it back before adventuring all day behind your guards) longbow
attacks and move your skeletons forward, as a bonus action at level five.
This is mostly hearsay, but I think it’s doable.
ETA: Technically you might be able to do 8, but I think that might run into timing issues with the
24 hour period.
 cassander says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:48 pm ~new~
intriguing. We’re starting at first level, so it will take a while to get there, but I like the notion, and
I can probably convince the DM to let me do larger, but fewer creatures if we ever get that far. It
looks like 5e has really changed how character progression works. Is there a strong reason to go
wizard over cleric?

Hide ↑
 ECD says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:54 pm ~new~
Yeah. If your DM is looking for models, the revised ranger companion might be a good place to
look, as it scales quite well with player advancement. Frankly that scaling makes more sense for a
bone golem or whatever, as you’re tinkering with it and grow more powerful.
Might be a bit overpowered on a full-caster chassis, but that could be dealt with.
Hide ↑
 caethan says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:32 pm ~new~
The benefit of wizard over cleric is the 6th level school of necromancy benefit: your minions get
bonus HP and bonus damage.

Hide ↑
 Spookykou says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:40 pm ~new~
Last I looked the companions are like 70% of a player character, giving one to a player character
as a pet has pretty serious balance implications.

Hide ↑
 ECD says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:21 pm ~new~
Last I looked the companions are like 70% of a player character, giving one to a player character as
a pet has pretty serious balance implications.
Oh, definitely. The question is what do you pay for it? If it’s quite a few spell slots essentially
permanently locked down on maintaining control of the creature you may well be balanced, even
without the social issues which come with trying to walk around with a bone golem (or whatever).
Hide ↑
June 16, 2020 at 9:45 pm ~new~
animate dead (the spell) seems pretty minimally useful. are there ways to make raising the dead
viable in 5e yet or will I need to wait for the inevitable splat books?
A level 11 necromancer has 3 third-level spells that can command up to 4 skeletons each, 3 fourth-
level spells that can command up to 6 skeletons each, 2 fifth-level spells that can command up to 8
skeletons each, and 1 sixth-level spell that can command up to 10 skeletons, for a total of 54
skeletons.
A skeleton has 13 Hit Points, Armor Class 13, +4 to hit with a shortbow (range 80 feet at 1d20+4,
320 feet at 2d20 take-the-worse +4). That’s similar but not tactically equal to having a bone golem
with 702 HP (but only +4 to hit, which is not mechanically impossible in 5E, just against tradition),
crap AC and 54 pairs of arms making ranged attacks. That’s incredibly OP in 5E.
(To make the 702 HP bone golem more equal to the Centurion Necromancer’s troops, a DM would
want to make it lose 1 arm from each attack that does >6 damage and give it a vulnerability where
Fireball reduces it to inanimate bones like a weird special Dispel.)

 ECD says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:37 am ~new~
It’s even worse, because the Necromancer gets their level added to HP, so it’s actually 24 HP per
skeleton.
Hide ↑
 cassander says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:38 am ~new~
Yeah, I saw the +4 to hit for skellies and was thinking about that in 3.5 terms, not realizing how
much they’d scaled down attack bonuses in 5e.

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 9:26 pm ~new~
It’s even worse, because the Necromancer gets their level added to HP, so it’s actually 24 HP per
skeleton.
I stand corrected! So you effectively get a monster with 1296 hit points and 54 attacks from 108
arms, though Fireball usually dispels it.
And 11th level isn’t even that impressive anymore. When I’ve played Adventurers League (Hasbro-
sanctioned 5E play), you gain a level just from sitting in the chair for 2 4-hour sessions.
Hide ↑
o Spookykou says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:48 pm ~new~
Lliira seems like the best bet, the goddess of eternal motion, her funerary rites are supposed to
include animating the dead, maybe something like, you take the skeletons on a final journey,
which is why they travel around with you.
Still I would go with a religious wizard rather than a cleric, maybe with the acolyte background.
The flavor for Clerics in basic 5e is very anti-undead full stop, especially the grave cleric.
o Randy M says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:13 pm ~new~
Pff, my group was doing D&D pandemics before it was cool.
I actually texted the DM when we had to cancel the third arc of our “stop the plague” campaign
due to the social distancing, “wow, you really out did your prop design this time.”
 Spookykou says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:44 pm ~new~
Oddly similar thing happened in my D&D game with a plague plotline that was running for a few
sessions before Covid hit the stage.

o broblawsky says:
June 16, 2020 at 11:00 pm ~new~
If your GM is willing to consider 3rd-party material, the Channeler makes for an interesting ghost-
summoner.
Alternatively, the Hexblade Warlock from Xanathar’s Guide gains the ability to summon spectres
and can temporarily animate zombies or skeletons with Danse Macabre.
Edit: the Phantom Rogue could also be interesting.
As for viable choice for FR gods who might be willing to countenance necromancy:
– Velsharoon, god of necromancy
– Shar, goddess of entropy
– Bhaal, god of murder
– Jergal, god of memorials

o strstr says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:06 am ~new~

My current group invented the Ronald Reagan inspired god “Reaganov”. I’m currently playing as a
Cleric that worships Reaganov and desires to bring the Free Market to all (for a price). His devout
followers can invoke the invisible hand for assistance (cast Unseen Servant). There are more
specifics, but they are all basically whatever our group thought was amusing (like the divination
spell directly requiring gold).
I find it to fun to worship a cartoonish take on a neoliberal/capitalist god. The “moral flexibility” is
nice in our current campaign, since it throws a lot of curve balls when it comes to who/what we
interact with. We were recently trying to establish free trade with the Feywild. We were eventually
banned and told to never return (due to some unfortunate accidents involving fireballs).
If you know your group well enough, you could also pick something else and worship a cartoonish
take on it. In the same vein, Marx would probably work (but you would be inspiring the workers to
unite). You’d probably have the knock spell since you have nothing to lose but your chains.
Obviously, I’m stuck in the political philosophy mindset, but there are certainly others.
As to how angles like this play out with necromancy: Reagan could be freeing his servants from
death. Marx could be inviting all workers to unite, undead or alive.

 rocoulm says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:51 am ~new~
My current group invented the Ronald Reagan inspired god “Reaganov”
He’s True Neutral but his most devout followers swear he’s Lawful Good?
 strstr says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:42 pm ~new~
Reaganov can either be true neutral or lawful neutral. Mostly depends on how militant you are
about Freedom. Mix in just a bit of ambivalence and you land in true neutral territory.
Unlike the real world, Reaganov’s followers have no problem judging his good-vs-neutral-ness,
since they unfortunately have mechanical effects. You could make all his followers be under the
illusion that all effects that distinguish the two imply that He is good, which would be funny. I
should keep that in mind.

o fibio says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:19 am ~new~
Worship yourself, when one day you become powerful enough to ascend to the pantheon you can
reach back through time and retroactively grant yourself miracles.

56. SamChevre says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:28 pm ~new~
And now for something completely different: Andrew Flicker recommended cocktails as something
to make on the last OT, and I agree. I bartended in college, got really into cocktail-making a
decade ago, and love cocktails.
So for fellow cocktail lovers: what’s one favorite cocktail, and if you make it yourself exactly how
do you make it?
One cocktail I love is a good bourbon and ginger ale: chill Canada Dry ginger ale thoroughly, fill a
glass with ice cubes, pour Evan Williams until it’s 1/3rd full, stir till the glass starts to sweat, pour
the ginger ale gently down the side and carefully lift the spoon out to just combine it. My
grandfather used to drink these (with Early Times vs EW), and once I
d graduated from college he’d offer me one.
Any highball made with that technique will be 100% better than in a standard bar.
o Matthias says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:51 pm ~new~
I like Negroni and Boulevardier. Made the standard ways, but with better ingredients than your
average bar uses.

 SamChevre says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:57 pm ~new~
Can you expand? What gin/bourbon and vermouth do you find ideal? (I love both drinks).
Sometime, try a half-teaspoon of Jamaican rum (ideally Smith and Cross) floated on a
Boulevardier.
 J.R. says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:21 pm ~new~
Not Matthias, but the Negroni is my favorite drink. My build dries out the drink a little.
1.5 oz gin (Beefeater)
1 oz sweet vermouth (Cocchi vermouth di Torino)
0.75 oz Campari
Stir and strain over a big rock, garnish with an orange peel.
Boulevardier build for kicks:
1.5 oz rye (Rittenhouse is my standard)

0.75 oz sweet vermouth (Cocchi)
0.75 oz Campari
And finally, my latest cocktail revelation is I really like martinis, BUT I don’t love dry vermouth, so I
go very heavy on the gin. And use both orange and lemon peel as a garnish – a trick I use in my
Old Fashioned’s that I like here.
2.5 oz gin (Tanqueray No 10 preferred, but Beefeater is still great here)
0.5 oz dry vermouth (Dolin Dry)
Stir and strain into stemmed glasses (coupes are better than the V-shapes martini glass). Squeeze
lemon and orange peel over glass. Add to drink or throw away if desired.
o JayT says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:52 pm ~new~
I love Manhattans. I make a pretty good one, but the best bars I’ve been to are still better. I
suspect it’s mostly due to the cherries, or possibly the vermouth.
3 parts rye, I like Michters.
1 part sweet vermouth. Of the easily accessible ones, stay away from Martini, Rivata is better, but
if you have a specialty liquor store nearby, try something nicer, like Carpano Antica.
A few dashes of Angostura bitters. You can play around with other bitters, but I always come back
to Angostura.
A maraschino/brandied cherry for garnish. You can add a drop of cherry juice of you want a
sweeter Manhattan, but I don’t usually do that. Find some decent cherries though, stay away from
the neon red ones. If you can’t find any good ones, put some dried sour cherries in a mason jar
and cover with brandy. Let them sit for a few days, and you’re set. Make sure they are sour
cherries.
o ltowel says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:56 pm ~new~
The Daquiri (not to be confused with one out of a blender) is a stupendous drink.
3 parts white rum
2 parts lime juice
1 part simple syrup
Shake, strain, server up or in an old fashioned glass.
My preferred way to prepare it for a beach weekend with friends is to take a growler (the stainless
steel one’s with large mouths are best), one 750 of the bacardi dragonberry rum, 6 juiced limes,
250 ml (or 8 oz) of simple, add a dash of salt, top with water or ice if it fits in the growler, shake it
or chill. This gives you 16 or so portable and delicious servings.
Really any 3 booze/2 parts sour/1 part simple drink is great – just make sure you have the right
sour for the booze.

o thesilv3r says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:04 pm ~new~
If we’re allowed to talk simple mixers (e.g. bourbon+ginger ale) and not complex things, I’m going
to go with Vanilla Galliano, Lemonade and a slice of lime – it is delightfully refreshing and it was
pure chance that someone ordered this for me once. I do enjoy cinnamon vodka mixed with my
family classic fruit punch (pineapple juice, lemonade, fresh mint and soda water to taste). If I’m at
a catered event I do love an espresso martini (and I don’t think they’re that hard to make from the
one time I did it at a party).
Also, because drinking calories is something I usually try to avoid, I’m always surprised at how
much more the liquor flavor shines through when mixing with Diet Cola (any brand) vs normally
sweetened drinks.
 SamChevre says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:08 pm ~new~
When you say lemonade do you mean American lemonade (tap water, lemon juice, and lots of
sugar) or European lemonade (carbonated, lightly sweetened and citrus-y)?

 thesilv3r says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:55 pm ~new~
Great point! I mean European lemonade.

o Aftagley says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:05 pm ~new~
Hot toddy with a bit of ginger muddled in for some spiciness. Absolutely delicious, tastes almost
like a tea and is the perfect nightcap.

 Tenacious D says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:49 am ~new~
Oh, the muddled ginger sounds like a nice touch.

o GearRatio says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:06 pm ~new~

The sidecar, made simply, is great; if you used to like screwdrivers, you now like sidecars.
Wikipedia says 2 oz Cognac, 3/4 oz Lemon juice, 3/4 oz Triple sec; I say 2/1/1, experiment a bit.
Sidecars do not mind cheap components.
If you try to order it at a nice bar, the bartender is going to do a bunch of unforgivable stuff to it;
he’s going to burn orange rinds over it and put in a bunch of extra sugar and salt the rim and it’s
going to be terrible. Bartenders think you are trying to be impressed when you order a sidecar and
will, in their enthusiasm, ruin your entire life if they can.

 andrewflicker says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:44 am ~new~
I agree entirely about the greatness of the simple sidecar, and that many bars destroy it. I do use
a different ratio, slightly, though- usually 2oz cognac, juice of half a lemon (roughly the 3/4oz), but
only 0.5oz triple sec. I prefer the brandy to shine through more, and not get overly sweetened by
lots of triple.
The stereotypical sugared rim is both unnecessary and (in my opinion) a detriment to the drink. If I
do feel like getting fancy with it, I’ll express a bit of lemon oil and toss a twist in. Sometimes I’ll
serve it on the rocks (with one single giant cube), and tap out a little bitters (of whatever I’m
feeling like) onto the cube- basically no flavor change, but you get some nice aromatics.
My wife enjoys rum sidecars as well, as a variation.

 SamChevre says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:59 am ~new~
I make a sidecar variant which I prefer to the original sidecar: mix orange marmalade with an
equal amount boiling water, strain, and use the syrup instead of at least half the triple sec. The
pectin gives it a very rich mouthfeel, which I enjoy.
I also prefer my sidecars on the sweet side–one of the very few drinks where I use less lemon and
more sweetener than the typical recipe.

o gbdub says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:15 pm ~new~
The Last Word – equal parts gin, green chartreuse, lime juice, and maraschino.
 Statismagician says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:50 am ~new~
Seconded. Cointreau also works if you haven’t got any Maraschino.

o sfoil says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:20 pm ~new~
The Aviation
– 2 parts gin
– 1 part lemon juice
– 1 part maraschino
-.25 parts creme de violette
shake/strain
Unfortunately the creme de violette can be rather difficult to find and is absolutely vital, though an
inferior version can be made by simply omitting it. Recently I’ve seen a brand called “Rothmann’s”
appear with reasonable regularity however — at least one store in a large town will have it.
Usually.
 Lambert says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:46 am ~new~
> creme de violette can be rather difficult to find
Viola odorata can be grown in hanging baskets or pots, as well as in the ground and is hardy to -10
°C or so. Pick newly opened flowers (morning’s usually the best time to pick flowers for culinary
use) and steep in everclear (vodka is an acceptable substitute). Steeping in brandy is also an
option. Wait a week or so then strain out the flowers and sweeten/dilute to taste.
African violets are unrelated to violets and pansies, and they are not edible. Do not use them.
June 17, 2020 at 10:45 am ~new~
Probably our house favorite! What gins do you prefer? If I’m drinking it at home myself, I usually
just use a london dry of some kind. If I have guests over, I’ll use Empress sometimes, just for the
enhanced color.
This is a drink where the extra-herbal gins aren’t well-suited, in my opinion.

 sfoil says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:54 pm ~new~
This is a drink where the extra-herbal gins aren’t well-suited, in my opinion.
Mine as well — I usually use Tanqueray though any London dry works.
(I’ve never liked “American” gins to the point that I have a conspiracy theory that they’re just
failed experiments by American distillers).

o psmith says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:08 pm ~new~
I’ll throw in a good word for the margarita, in summers. Espolon Reposado, Cointreau, key lime
juice, rocks, salt on the glass. I’ve had some at a Mexican restaurant that had a very nice smoky
note to them, but I’m not sure if they were using mezcal or just a different tequila.
Trader Joe’s lemon-ginger seltzer is also worth a mention as my preferred low-calorie mixer for
most things. Now I think about it, a dash of ginger might be pretty good in a margarita, too.
June 17, 2020 at 10:46 am ~new~
They’re probably using mezcal or an anejo tequila. If we do a stirred margarita on the rocks like
that at my house, we’re usually using a smoky mezcal. Try it with rangpur lime juice, if you get the
chance sometime- it’s a nice variation.

o salvorhardin says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:13 pm ~new~
Vieux Carre. My usual mix:
1 part cognac (Camus or Marnier or if feeling fancy Dudognon)
1 part rye (Sazerac or Lost Republic or if feeling fancy Hudson Manhattan Rye)
1 part Carpano Antico sweet vermouth (Dolin is probably more authentic but I like the bolder
Italian flavor better)
Orange bitters to taste

 SamChevre says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:39 am ~new~
No Benedictine? (The Vieux Carre is among my favorites.)

o Simulated Knave says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:44 pm ~new~
The Simulated Knave:
Two parts grapefruit soda
One part gin
One part lime juice

I worried I was an alcoholic after I invented that, until I realized I stopped drinking them if I ran
out of lime juice.

o WoollyAI says:
June 16, 2020 at 10:49 pm ~new~
Grog. Like the pirates drank. 4 parts hot water, 1 part rum.
Advantages:
#1 Delicious, especially before bed
#2 Comically simple
#3 Pirates
 Lambert says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:52 am ~new~
I raise you a gunfire: 4 parts black tea, 1 part rum.


June 17, 2020 at 6:06 am ~new~
Grog. Like the pirates drank. 4 parts hot water, 1 part rum.
Ye forgot the lime juice, ye scurvy dog!
 Well... says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:07 pm ~new~
My daughter pulled an Um Actually on me once when I said this. Apparently dogs cannot get
scurvy; she was taught this fact (and to correct people with it) on some PBS Kids show.
Crap, they got me too. Sorry.

 bean says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:03 pm ~new~
Grog was specifically a Royal Navy drink, specifically to keep the men from hoarding the rum. I
would assume that most pirates drank their rum straight.

o broblawsky says:
June 16, 2020 at 11:09 pm ~new~
If you live in/near NYC, you can get Dr. Brown’s, which means you can make The Stone Fruit: 2
parts Dr. Brown’s Black Cherry soda, 1 part Slivovitz plum brandy. Inspired by re-reading Dracula.
o Ketil says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:07 am ~new~
Some options I didn’t see mentioned:
Moscow mule – vodka, lime juice, and ginger beer, served icy cold, and traditionally in a copper
cup. I don’t keep accurate recipes, so go look it up or mix to taste – but I prefer Fever Tree GB.
Gin tonic – it’s probably no longer fashionable to do it like this, but Hendrick’s gin, your favorite
tonic, and garnished with cucumber slices and fresh black pepper.
Some other options for summer I like are Campari and orange juice, or mojito (rum, lime, fresh
mint leaves, syrup, top up with soda).

o episcience says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:13 am ~new~
My girlfriend and I have been on a cocktail kick since we’ve started quarantining together.
Favourites are:
— Negroni. We make it with Antica Formula, Campari, and whatever gin the local spirits merchant
recommends — we’re currently enjoying East London batch #2. I like to go slightly lighter on the
gin than the standard equal parts (so I do two parts gin and three parts vermouth and Campari
when making two cockails). Make sure you have heaps of ice and stir until everything is ice-cold
and the tumbler is sweating. Use a potato peeler to peel some orange skin without any pith, twist
to get some oils out, and rub it around the rim of a lowball glass before pouring. Twist the orange
peel into a nice spiral or flower as a garnish.
— Manhattan. Not something I drank much of before quarantine. Four parts bourbon (Wild Turkey
is the go to), two parts vermouth (Antica Formula, as above), generous amounts of both Angostura
and Peychaud’s bitters, serve with a Luxardo cherry. We like these served low too.
— Margarita. Two parts tequila blanco (Cabrita or Espolon), one part Cointreau, one part freshly-
squeezed lime juice, salted rim.
— Martini. Here we differ. Mine is a gin martini (Brooklyn Gin is good) with 4 parts gin, 1 part
vermouth, 1 parts olive brine (from Perello canned green olives, honestly the best canned olives
I’ve ever tasted), served with three olives on a toothpick. Hers is a vodka martini (Tito’s), with a
tiny splash of olive brine and only using vermouth to coat the inside of the glass before serving
(with an olive).
— Paloma. 2 parts tequila blanco, 2 parts grapefruit juice, 1 part lime juice. Serve in a highball
with a salted rim, top with grapefruit soda, garnish with half a slice of grapefruit. Super refreshing
on a hot summer’s day.
We’ve also experimented with gimlets and Moscow Mules, and have had a couple too many Aperol
Spritzes whilst sitting in the park in the sun. Any recommendations appreciated!
 SamChevre says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:47 am ~new~
My recommendations given what you have and like:
A Boulevardier – equal parts bourbon (or rye), sweet vermouth, and Campari.- very like a Negroni,
but richer.
A Perfect Manhattan – equal parts sweet and dry vermouth (same total as the sweet vermouth in a
regular Manhattan), lemon peel garnish.
I’d try Cocchi Vermouth di Torino – it’s a slightly less honey/vanilla profile than Carpano Antica.
o Fitzroy says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:28 am ~new~
I love a French 77: St. Germaine elder-flower liqueur and a squeeze of lemon juice topped up with
champagne. It’s even nicer with a measure of good gin in there as well.
A good Old Fashioned is a joy as well. I know just one cocktail bar in London that makes them
properly (IE with the bitters dripped slowly over a sugar cube to dissolve it, slowly stirring). Indeed
the process take sufficiently long that when you order an Old Fashioned they serve you half a pint
of beer while you wait.

 Lambert says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:04 am ~new~
I’d ask which bar it is but I expect I’d have to liquidate all my assets to buy one.
 Fitzroy says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:05 am ~new~
Merchant House of Bow Lane. £16.50 for an Old Fashioned, and a half while you wait, which is
pretty reasonable for London prices.

 episcience says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:32 am ~new~
I think it’s the Merchant House, near St Paul’s. Very good, but not for the faint of wallet.
Edit — should have refreshed before commenting!

 SamChevre says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:29 am ~new~
A really good Old Fashioned (although I’m a rich simple guy vs a sugar cube guy) – just good
bourbon (I like Elijah Craig), sugar, and bitters garnished with an orange twist–is a delicious
cocktail, very easy to make and very hard to buy.

 CatCube says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:33 am ~new~
I actually started drinking Old Fashioneds with simple syrup during the quarantine, and started
using the syrup in my coffee. It help me use it up before worrying about it going bad, always an
issue when you live alone. It does make it easier to dissolve sugar in stuff.
o Ed Silva says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:44 am ~new~
Nothing beats a good caipirinha. Tasty, easy to make and strong as hell.
3-4 shots of cachaca
Cut one lime in 4 slices, remove the white strand/core, and score the skin with the knife.
Throw one big spoonful of sugar (sorry I can’t be more specific. Just get one big spoon and stack
as much sugar in there as you can, it’s better to add too much than too little).
mix the shots with lime and sugar in cocktail mixer and grind with a pestle. Then throw some ice
cubes in there and shake well. You’re done! Needs almost no ingredients and is super quick.
For the cachaca, the best one for me is Velho Barreiro, but any should be fine. You can also
substitute with vodka, but it’s less authentic!

o Byrel Mitchell says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:46 am ~new~
I really like a vermouth-heavy dirty vodka martini:
1 part vodka (Tito’s)
1 part extra dry Vermouth
0.3 parts olive brine
And ideally 3 olives as a garnish.

o Garrett says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:44 am ~new~

A challenge, appropriate to your name:
Come up with a mixed drink which uses goat’s milk as the base and actually tastes good.
 Lambert says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:01 am ~new~
Well first you mince some of that particular goat’s kid’s meat and add it to the glass…
 SamChevre says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:10 am ~new~
(I’m too dairy-intolerant to drink it but) I’d suggest a milk punch. 3 parts goat milk, 1 part brandy
or Jamaican gold rum, I part rich simple syrup*, shake vigorously with ice, grate some nutmeg
over the top, and drink.
These were a favorite (with cows milk) when I could still have milk–and they are deceptively easy
to drink.
*My go-to Jamaican rum is Appleton Special Gold, my go-to brandies are Korbel (just fruity) and St
Remy (richer). Rich simple syrup is 2 parts sugar, 1 part water, bring to a boil–it will keep at room
temperature for months.

June 17, 2020 at 8:15 am ~new~
This also works with bourbon.

 ltowel says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:31 pm ~new~
I make brandy milk punch with half and half and vanilla every holidays. Tastes like a vanilla
milkshake.
 noyann says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:47 am ~new~
White Muzhik.
The taste you have to find out yourself. Then we’ll see what condition your condition was in.
 Garrett says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:54 pm ~new~
Alas, a White Russian does not do so well when made with goat’s milk. I’ve tried. But goat’s milk
has a pungency to it which seems to clash terribly.

 noyann says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:06 pm ~new~
The things I learn here…
Did you catch the oblique movie reference?
(uggcf://jjj.lbhghor.pbz/jngpu?i=qbbFSViYa-L)
Hide ↑
 nkurz says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:10 pm ~new~
What kind of goat milk did you use? I’ve always intensely disliked goat cheese because of the
taste. I also disliked all the goat milk I’d had, for having the same licking-a-dirty-goat flavor. Then
I was given some very fresh goat milk by a friend with goats, and to my great surprise, it was
approximately the best milk I’d ever drank — no caprine flavor, fabulous creaminess, basically
perfect.
Apparently some of the difference is breed, some is whether the does are kept near a buck, but a
lot is just freshness. Cared for well, I think you at most three days. I’ve never had anything in a
store that came close. I don’t know that it would do well in alcoholic drinks, but if like a good
Muzhik you’ve got your own goats, I wouldn’t be too surprised if it was really good.
Hide ↑
 noyann says:
June 18, 2020 at 12:58 am ~new~
The pungency of a riper goat chees is great when used as spice. A few small crumbs in a salad add
a nice ‘vulgar’ tastiness to it. Start with few and small, then add to taste.
Hide ↑
o andrewflicker says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:40 am ~new~
Your Bourbon’n’Ginger is identical to mine, down to preparation and Canada Dry, except that I vary
up the bourbon based on what I have on hand, or feel like. Often Bulleit, since it’s incredibly cheap
at Costco, but half a dozen other common bourbons as well on rotation. Good call!
o andrewflicker says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:57 am ~new~

Since a few people have mentioned Manhattans, and it’s one of my favorites- I heartily recommend
you brandy your own cherries! Cheaper than buying the oh-so-expensive Luxardo cherries, and I
find that the liqeur that I soak them in to be an interesting and flavorful ingredient in its own right.
Lots of people do it very basic, with just brandy, sugar, water, and a bit of spices. Screw that- if
you’re doing it yourself, go crazy!
I change it up every time I do it, but here’s a sample recipe:
2lbs ripe cherries, de-stemmed and pitted (use a cherry pitter!)
3 tbsp whole allspice
3 cinnamon sticks, broken up a bit
1 whole star anise
2 cups sugar (I did half white – half brown last time)
1 cup water (add a bit more later if you can’t get the sugar to dissolve in)
1 cup brandy
1/2 cup bourbon
1/2 cup white rum
juice of 2 lemons
Make a spice sachet with all your whole spices.
Simmer sugar and water till dissolved, then add the spice sachet and simmer for a few minutes.
Add the cherries, and mix so well coated- don’t let it boil/burn.
Add in all the booze and lemon juice, and heat/stir till it’s hot but not simmering.
Remove spice sachet.
Pack jars/glass canisters with the cherries (using a slotted spoon).
Pour hot boozy liquid into each jar until almost full (leave like 1/2″-1″ of air).
Seal ’em, and refrigerate for use.

o Doctor Mist says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:52 pm ~new~
Here are two I like.
The Twentieth Century is

1 1/2 oz gin
3/4 oz Lillet Blanc
1/2 oz white creme de cacao
3/4 oz lemon juice
The Lillet gives it a little foam and cacao gives it a mysterious taste without being enough to
identify as chocolate.
But if you like chocolate, I give you my own invention:
His Nibs is:

2 oz chocolate rye
3/4 oz orange liqueur — I use Combier, but Citronge or even Cointreau works too
3/4 oz Meyer lemon juice — or ordinary lemon juice with a little hunk of muddled orange
Garnish with a Luxardo cherry.
That much is my invention. It’s dead easy once you have a batch of chocolate rye, which I didn’t
invent:
1/3 cup cacao nibs
1/2 tsp whole black peppercorns
5 allspice berries
1/4 cup sliced almonds, toasted
2 2-inch cinnamon sticks
1/2 inch fresh ginger, peeled and sliced
1 1/2 cups rye whiskey
In an airtight container, combine it all and swirl to mix. Let it sit at room temperature for a couple
of days, shaking occasionally, and then strain into a clean airtight container.
Serious Eats gives a recipe for a cocktail to make with it, but I tried it and thought it was dreadful.
Try His Nibs instead.

57. Dan Elton says:
June 16, 2020 at 4:46 pm ~new~
Twitter user @GradEmpUnion kickstarted the Twitter mob which eventually led to a petition to get
him fired. In a very misleading and disingenuous series of tweets, @GradEmpUnion points to an
interview Hsu did with Stephan Molyneux. Molyneux is an alt-right character, but that shouldn’t
matter. We should encourage discourse, even with those on the alt-right. Talking with someone
should never hurt someone or be socially stigmatized. I watched some of the interview, and Hsu is
just talking about the basic science of IQ and the g factor. The only time he brings up race, it is to
downplay its importance. Of course, the twitter mob used a clip where he was downplaying race to
try to say he thought race was important – classic twitter mob tactics. (see
https://twitter.com/GradEmpUnion/status/1270829018208706562). The only factual complaints
I’ve found so far are that he “hosted X on his podcast, who holds controversial opinion Y”. That’s
hardly a reason to fire someone in any case, let alone from a university where academic freedom is
supposed to be a core value!

o ChelOfTheSea says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:07 pm ~new~
> The only time he brings up race, it is to downplay its importance.
Given that he appears, elsewhere, to attribute the achievement gaps between blacks and whites to
the same forces, it seems like he’s “downplaying its importance” only to say the equivalent of “no,
they’re not underperforming because they’re black, they’re underperforming because they’re
stupid”.
That is a claim you can make, but it’s a claim that should come under extreme suspicion at a
minimum – much less if you’re doing it on the show of someone who is known to be really, really
racist!
June 17, 2020 at 3:26 pm ~new~
ChelOfTheSea:
IQ tests are basically intended to predict academic ability. It would be utterly shocking if groups
with very different average IQs did not have very different average levels of academic success.
IIRC, IQ scores predict black and white academic and workplace achievement equally well.
58. acertainidiot says:

June 16, 2020 at 4:44 pm ~new~
This was supposed to be a culture-war free open thread, but I guess the ship has sailed on that one
To be fair, the link you provided us is filled with comments to get rid of the current university
system rather than showing any support for Dr. Hsu, so it’s not like you had much of a chance.
o DBDr says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:23 pm ~new~
Oof. I went to the defense link; half of the people commenting on the blog take the reasonable
“That sucks bro” stance, the rest is split between the modern equivalent of weirdo NWO types,
people who are really worried (like, they aren’t making analogies, they’re just talking about china)
about the PRC for some reason, and general deplorability.
Even if you are a normal god damn human, getting tarred with this particular brush attracts
defenders you probably would rather just support you silently.

 Anonymous` says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:21 pm ~new~
The hey? You’re just going to drive-by-smear people who are worried about Chinese influence on
American universities as deplorables with no reason for their beliefs? Have you not been paying
attention?
Check out these links first at least.

June 16, 2020 at 8:56 pm ~new~

comments to get rid of the current university system rather than showing any support for Dr. Hsu
The two are not mutually exclusive.
I have a real question for Scott about how far we should take the being charitable rule.
I just do not believe that the commenter named “acertainidiot” is, on this issue, anything other
than a concern troll. Now, if evidence were to be provided that he has spoken out in defense of Hsu
in a different context, something as simple as single tweet from a Twitter account that wasn’t
created in the past month, I would change my view. But he has no blog, no twitter account, no
paper trail, his very username…
So how should I respond to this? Should I, in the future, just keep the suspicions above to myself
because sharing them would not be charitable? How do you think a church is going to respond to
someone who comes in from nowhere, no record of attending the church or any church in the town
as far as anyone is aware, and says “oh, the people in these pews are good Christians, the people
in these pews are sinners, they need to repent change their ways, and they’re harming the
credibility of our church by not doing so?” You don’t want this to become reddit where people feel
free to say “well, I believe you’re supporting policy A because you hate group X, and no amount of
evidence will change my mind.” The difference is that all I’m asking for is a single tweet from a
Twitter account that wasn’t created in the past month. I don’t think that’s very unreasonable.

June 16, 2020 at 10:05 pm ~new~
If you see posts of his you’re worried about, report them. Nothing I see here seems concerning to
me, but if I see enough to notice a pattern, I’ll take it into account.
 MilesM says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:24 am ~new~
I think your post is far more damaging to the tone and quality of discussion here than the one you
complain about.
The idea that someone needs to have “proof” (as defined by you) of their intentions before stating
an opinion is uncharitable. And unreasonable.
You say “you don’t want this to become reddit”, but scrutinizing people’s posting history to validate
their arguments is the most Reddit thing ever.

 Talexander Urok says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:28 pm ~new~
The idea that someone needs to have “proof” (as defined by you) of their intentions before stating an
opinion is uncharitable.
This is not just any opinion. acertainidiot’s opnion is what you call a wedge argument, trying to
divide a group of people. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, I’ve made many wedge
arguments on the Unz comment section in the past few months as part of my personal jihad
against the corona deniers. But when people say “as an advocate of X, I think this subgroup of
people who are also advocates of X are bad or at least strongly misguided,” it’s not unreasonable
to ask them what they’ve actually done for X. Suppose you went to an IRL meeting about X,
whether it’s world hunger, police brutality, tea party, etc., and opened with that kind of argument,
what do you think you’re going to be asked? It’ll be, what have you done, why are you only
showing up here now? Is that unreasonable? What would you do, if you were the leader of the
meeting?
Yes, this is not a quest to solve world hunger, but the general principle is the same. You can search
for “acertainidiot” slatestarcodex.com on google and you’ll get 3 results.* If he were to make an
argument advocating for Hsu, and he had this lack of a paper trail, I’d say we should be charitable
about his intentions. If he were to make an argument against Hsu, I’d say the same thing, be
charitable about his intentions. But if he’s saying exactly what a concern troll would say, and he
has this total lack of a paper trail, what should be the null hypothesis? Think about what that figure
means. Has he never expressed an internet opinion on anything other than in three SSC threads?
Almost certainly not. Like most commenters, he presumably has expressed opinions elsewhere and
hasn’t correlated his identities together. He might say it’s because he has a life unlike us blogger
NEETs. What would we lose if we tell people we’re not going to accept wedge arguments unless the
commenter is one who chooses to leave a paper trail, whether that’s an extensive comment history
here, a blog, a twitter account, etc?
*I, btw, have 414, and Hsu has been in my blogroll for years, so I have the paper trail.
59. Tenacious D says:
June 16, 2020 at 4:44 pm ~new~
Last year, samples of Ebola virus were shipped from the only BSL-4 lab in Canada to the Wuhan
Institute of Virology. Several months later, the main researcher involved (Dr. Qiu) was escorted
out of the lab on national-security grounds that still haven’t been disclosed. The story has stayed in
the news partly because of its links to Covid19 conspiracy theories (which don’t seem plausible as
Ebola isn’t a coronavirus), but apart from that, how big a deal is it? Routine scientific collaboration,
or pretty irregular?
o Aftagley says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:53 pm ~new~
I mean, if they expelled her, her husband and all her students like your article says it was almost
certainly some kind of industrial/academic espionage.

 Tarpitz says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:03 pm ~new~
My impression is that the scale of essentially amateur* industrial espionage of this kind carried out
by the PRC is enormous. MSS intelligence officers seem to pretty much try to recruit any nationally
or ethnically Chinese person they can find who even might have access to anything useful at all,
provide them with minimal if any training, throw them at the problem and not really worry if they
get caught because their activities don’t tend to meet Western standards for criminal prosecution
and the agents know almost nothing that would be of interest to Western intelligence agencies.
*amateur with respect to espionage/tradecraft – they may well be experts in the field they’re
trying to acquire industrial intelligence in.

June 17, 2020 at 8:01 am ~new~
Up til now, there’s been little risk, but the US is starting to crack down on researchers with
undisclosed funding from China (link). I wonder if Dr. Qiu’s case was linked to that effort, or
perhaps as part of the tit-for-tat following the Meng Wanzhou arrest.
 Aftagley says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:59 pm ~new~
My understanding from reading the news is that it’s twofold – they’ll both send people into places
that have information they want and that if they identify someone with ties to China who’s
currently got access to their wanted information, they’ll start turning the screws.
not really worry if they get caught because their activities don’t tend to meet Western standards for
criminal prosecution and the agents know almost nothing that would be of interest to Western
intelligence agencies.
Also because at this point, there’s basically no risk to China. From what I read, they don’t risk
actual intelligence assets running these guys – it’s almost always handled by civilian intermediaries
and whatever reputation hit could fall on China’s already happened. Everyone knows they’re
thieves, it’s not like the world’s opinion of them can drop more in this regard.
60. littskad says:

June 16, 2020 at 4:17 pm ~new~
Apparently bread-and-butter pickles may possibly be called that because they were commonly
eaten on buttered bread during the Great Depression, but actual contemporaneous evidence for
this is hard to find. Anyone out there who eats pickle and butter sandwiches?
o broblawsky says:
June 16, 2020 at 4:35 pm ~new~
Seems like a similar flavor profile to vegemite sandwiches.

o Gerry Quinn says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:39 pm ~new~
Never have, and I find it hard to imagine because pickles are just a bit too watery for a bread and
butter sandwich. But then again, I often eat bread and butter sandwiches with salted slices of
tomato. So if you like the rather more acidic flavour, perhaps pickle sandwiches would work.
o Pazzaz says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:37 am ~new~
Eating bread-and-butter pickles on bread is pretty common in Sweden (where it is called
Ättiksgurka or Smörgåsgurka). It is often combined with liver pâté (leverpastej). A typical person
would eat it like this.

 SamChevre says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:07 am ~new~
That’s a typical use of pickles in the US also–on bread with some other sandwich ingredients.
Would it be unusual in Sweden if someone had only the buttered bread and the pickles–nothing
else?
 MilesM says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:24 am ~new~
Not quite the same thing, but bread with bacon lard and pickles is definitely a thing in Polish
“cuisine.” Wouldn’t surprise me if people substituted butter in a pinch, but it’s not the same thing –
the lard is saltier, has little bits of crackling… I think I need to go put together some lunch.
(I don’t really have a good feel for how popular it is at the moment – IIRC it enjoyed a resurgence
as restaurants serving “country food” became a thing, and Polish places in NYC serve it still. It’s
also one of the “classic” accompaniments when drinking shots of vodka.)

 Pazzaz says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:05 am ~new~
It would be a little unusual but I know people who always eat it with only butter. I think I’ve done
it too.
61. johan_larson says:

June 16, 2020 at 4:09 pm ~new~
You are invited to submit the latest headlines from June 16, 2050.
ENGLAND ACCEPTED AS 53RD STATE OF US
103 PRIVATE CARS WITH INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES REGISTERED IN CANADA
CHINESE-IRANIAN BORDER DISPUTES CONTINUE INTO FIFTH YEAR

June 16, 2020 at 4:37 pm ~new~
These are not “headlines”, these are entire news articles. In 2050, all journalism is done on
Twitter.
o Biater says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:32 pm ~new~
TROUBLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

 johan_larson says:
June 16, 2020 at 10:38 pm ~new~
CRITICAL CYCLATRON ACCIDENT: MIDDLE EAST NOW FAR WEST

o Matthias says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:54 pm ~new~
You think Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland would no longer be with England?
Scotland and perhaps Noether Ireland would probably be out of the UK by then. But Wales?

June 16, 2020 at 6:24 pm ~new~
Wales and Northern Ireland were the 51st and 52nd states. Scotland’s application for admission
was rejected on the grounds that the United States already had all the Scotsmen it could handle.
Same goes for Ireland.

June 16, 2020 at 7:48 pm ~new~
The Scottish vote to join the US was also complicated by loud nationalist allegations that “join”
voters were not true Scotsmen.

 Evan Þ says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:51 pm ~new~
The allegators were then summarily Canceled for assuming the “join” voters’ gender.
Hide ↑
 johan_larson says:
June 16, 2020 at 10:40 pm ~new~
Won’t Scotland break off and rejoin the EU in 2028 or so?

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 6:12 am ~new~
On the original point:
RIOTS IN BRUSSELS MARK 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE DISSOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Hide ↑
o Randy M says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:19 pm ~new~
Whistleblowers allege US no longer has capabilities to land on Mars. (cheating, that should
probably be 2080 or so).
Midterm primary elections still in manual recount as voting machines found to have voted for
themselves.
o fibio says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:45 am ~new~
YOU WONT BELIEVE THESE WEIRD CELEBRITY BABY NAMES. JEAN?!? THATS JUST THE START
June 17, 2020 at 7:57 am ~new~
NUMBER OF DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY CANDIDATES NOW UNDER 100

o Eric T says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:15 am ~new~
X Æ A-12 MUSK WORLD’S FIRST PERSON TO BE WORTH 100 TRILLION DOLLARS

o noyann says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:50 am ~new~
GREAT PLAINS STEPPE CLOSED FOR TOURISM

62. ranttila1 says:

June 16, 2020 at 4:04 pm ~new~
I’m looking for authors (nonfiction) who make big grand statements about big grand topics.
Hopefully this thread will allow us to look at the bigger picture in a time so focused on short term
anger.
Most nonfiction authors like making big statements about little subjects, or small statements about
big subjects. I’m looking for those that make big statements about huge topics, and change your
whole viewpoint on life.
A few examples to make my point clearer: Rene Girard, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell (The Power of
Myth), Yuval Noah Harari (Sapiens), Nassim Taleb (The Black Swan), Robert Greene, Michel
Foucault, Matt Ridley, Jared Diamond, Freidrich Nietzsche, David Graeber (Debt: A 5,000 Year
History), and Julian Jaynes (The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind).
These people have totally flipped my worldview, and I want to be amazed again. Do you have any
recommendations for authors that make huge statements about grand topics?
o slipperypig says:
June 16, 2020 at 4:18 pm ~new~

Interested as well. Martin Gurri’s “Revolt of the Public,” several of Tyler Cowen’s books like
“Average is Over.”
o Tenacious D says:
June 16, 2020 at 4:28 pm ~new~
Vaclav Smil has some pretty big-picture books.

 ranttila1 says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:58 pm ~new~
What books of his are your favorites?

June 16, 2020 at 7:49 pm ~new~
Not the OP but I learned a lot from Creating the Twentieth Century.
June 17, 2020 at 8:04 am ~new~
So far I’ve only read Harvesting the Biosphere. I believe there’s a fair bit of thematic overlap with
Energy and Civilization. The one I want to read next is Growth—I was actually thinking of reviewing
it for Scott’s contest, but I don’t think I’ll have it read in time.
o SamChevre says:
June 16, 2020 at 4:41 pm ~new~
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism: from de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse (page with free
pdf).
I found it in a dumpster when I was 15, and it is one of the 10 most influential books I ever read.
It’s definitions are precise enough to be helpful even if you disagree–thinking about how and why
you disagree is enlightening. And its Central-European focus in the discussion fo the First World
War is enlightening if your education, like that of most Americans, focuses on the western front.
ETA: I’d recommend reading it alongside Corey Robin’s The Reactionary Mind
Also, I’ll link the discussion on this a couple weeks ago.

 ranttila1 says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:58 pm ~new~
Thanks for linking my previous discussion! It’ll be interesting to check out the descent of both the
Left and the Right. Are the two books written from people who are on the political side which they
are writing about or are they opposed to the political leaning they are writing about?
 SamChevre says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:03 pm ~new~
Both books are arguing for their side, by writing a book about their opponents.
o romeostevens says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:41 am ~new~
Invariances by Nozick is kind of dry unless you pick up on what he is doing which is to flip the is-
ought problem on its head in an interesting way. The inversion is difficult enough to conceptualize
that he takes most of a book to do it.
Elevator pitch: Nozick extends extensionalism using extensionalism, which is even more Quinean
than Quine.
 ranttila1 says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:12 am ~new~
Is Quine worth a read? What book of his is a good introduction to him? I know that the rationalist
community mentions him a lot, but I have not yet delved into why that is.
 Doug S. says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:44 pm ~new~
Quine did a lot of work on formal logic. You don’t need to read him any more than you do Einstein
– you read textbooks on the subject.

o Rinrin says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:37 am ~new~
http://www.paulgraham.com/sun.html
May I tentatively suggest that you’re taking these people too seriously? I myself used to do this. (I
believe I still do if I don’t concentrate.) Then I noticed how little evidence they present for their
views, and how UNHELPFUL their “insights” are for achieving anything concrete.
63. Purplehermann says:

June 16, 2020 at 3:49 pm ~new~
There is an accusation against the professor in the twitter thread about conflicts of interest not
being properly declared, I didn’t understand exactly what is being claimed. Could someone explain
what he’s being accused of exactly, and if it is or isn’t a serious issue?

o caethan says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:40 pm ~new~
He wrote a paper (published October 2019) involving work at his company Genomic Prediction, and
didn’t initially divulge in the paper that he was on the board. A month later (November 2019), he
submitted a correction divulging the conflict of interest. I don’t see anything about it in his
response. It’s the only, IMO, legitimate complaint against him.
It’s not great, but it’s been corrected. I’d say a sharp word from the higher ups not to let it happen
again is enough.
64. meh says:

June 16, 2020 at 3:49 pm ~new~
what is the best way to chronologically watch the videos of a youtube channel?
o Machin Shin says:
June 16, 2020 at 4:41 pm ~new~
You can sort by date (oldest->newest) on a channel’s video page…

 meh says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:14 pm ~new~
that will show videos ive viewed already though. (assume i am not watching it all in one sitting)
 fwipsy says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:24 am ~new~
Maybe do the sort, then go through and add the ones you haven’t seen to your queue? I don’t
think there’s a way to avoid manually filtering out videos you’ve already seen.
o Lambert says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:57 am ~new~
The hard part is when it’s a channel about history and you want to watch it the other kind of
chronologically.
o Pazzaz says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:50 am ~new~
If it isn’t too many videos, you could download all videos with youtube-dl and then (re)move videos
when you’ve watched them. This can be done using something like (command not actually tested)
youtube-dl -f best -o "%(timestamp)s-%(title)s.%(ext)s"
o Rinrin says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:39 am ~new~
Use youtube-dl to easily download everything to your computer.

o chrisminor0008 says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:17 am ~new~
youtube-dl the entire channel to your hard drive. Delete each video upon watching.
65. Dan L says:

June 16, 2020 at 3:48 pm ~new~
Is there a seriously buried lede, or am I missing something? Genomic Prediction is a real extant
company that appears to be selling genetic screening kits right now for the express purpose of
embryo selection. Its co-founder is appropriately cagey in an interview about what the technology
might be capable of a decade from now, but the company is IME unusually forward about how it
can be applied to polygenic traits. I think there’s a legitimate defense of that stance, but it’s pretty
much the opposite of pure academic work.

June 16, 2020 at 6:45 pm ~new~

The company projects that once high-quality genetic and academic achievement data from a million
individuals becomes available
Seriously problematic that (what the Guardian says) their IQ trait correlate will be is academic
achievement in lieu of g itself (which we only have proxies for measuring, and I don’t doubt that
many of these proxies are biased in favor of particular sub-intelligences). I don’t doubt that many
of the genetic studies used as inputs to this embryo selection process will indeed look for genetic
elements correlating to academic achievement, but given that we know for an absolute fact that IQ
and academic achievement are not perfectly correlated, this would be f*ed up to the extreme.
People like me would be sorted against in favor of those with lower IQs but whose temperaments
and psychological complexes are pro-academic achievement.
Gorillas selecting for a bunch of stronger gorillas, too. What is potentially lost by selecting for
higher IQ? Anything? Most likely, at least statistically speaking, given that they aren’t building
embryos de novo, but merely selecting for ones highest in a singular phenotype.
What a Brave New World you bring us Mr. Hsu. The inmates not only run the asylum (doctors
running the academy), but soon they will turn their hand to making us non-inmates in their
images.
June 17, 2020 at 12:01 am ~new~
Adding: I was generally supportive of Hsu until seeing this. Now I’m genuinely anxious as to what
his company is planning on doing.
I’d far, far rather medical and precision genome editing cures for diseases than embryo selection
(barring serious lethality).

 Incurian says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:17 am ~new~
I think you’ll still be allowed to make your own kids however you want.
June 17, 2020 at 9:07 am ~new~
All things considered it’s likely my parents (especially my father) would have chosen a different kid.
Given how often I’ve seen parents express desires that their children be a chip off the old block I
expect that this is not unusual.
Also: If you give people particular options to choose, enough of them will make choices based on
those options simply because they’ve been given the power to make a particular choice. However
this does not negate the fact that you are the one choosing which options, and which order, they
are presented with to choose from.

 Murphy says:
June 18, 2020 at 3:14 am ~new~
but given that we know for an absolute fact that IQ and academic achievement are not perfectly
correlated, this would be f*ed up to the extreme.
Things don’t have to be perfectly correlated to be informative.
If I’m doing a disease study and I have 2 groups, cases and controls where cases are people
diagnosed to have the condition of interest, lets say parkinsons…
There is not a 100% correlation between a diagnosis of parkinsons and whether that person
actually has parkinsons.
Because doctors aren’t great at giving consistent diagnosis’s.
Sometimes some of your cases turn out to look like they have some other kinda similar movement
disorder that’s on the differential diagnosis chart for parkinsons.
Sometimes some of your controls show as having mutations known to have a super-strong link to
the disease in question and when you look at their details they have a bunch of symptoms but the
doctor just never diagnosed them.
Academic achievement doesn’t have a 100% correlation with intelligence. But it has a reasonably
strong correlation which is good enough to be informative.
Just like, height can be strongly affected by diet, someone can have every height allele but if their
parents starved them then they could end up 4-foot-2. There’s not a perfect correlation. But it’s
good enough.
Genetic studies can cope with correlations not being perfect and it’s not a slight against you.
Parents might want children like themselves…. but they already have access to one of the most
powerful ways of doing this already.

Choosing partners who are similar to themselves.
People already mate assortatively on height, IQ and various other features. You have a trillion
possible alternative siblings who could have been who don’t exist because your dad didn’t like the
eye colour of that other woman or your mom gravitated to familiar facial shapes.
o Randy M says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:24 pm ~new~
Interesting, thanks for bringing that up.

o Ketil says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:34 am ~new~

Genomic Prediction is a real extant company that appears to be selling genetic screening kits right
now for the express purpose of embryo selection.
Oh noes! What if white supremacists use this to ensure they don’t have black kids?
 thisheavenlyconjugation says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:05 am ~new~
I mean, I think “eugenics” (as in germinal choice, not racist early 20th century stuff) is good
akshually, but you still have to acknowledge that most people disagree and engage with something
resembling the stronger arguments against it.

 B_Epstein says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:22 am ~new~
Is it obvious, or even true, that most people who are capable of separating the two disagree with
the non-early-20-century version? The typical stance I’ve encountered, across the political
spectrum, was “obviously great on paper but requires a great deal of caution”. If this is at least a
fairly well-represented position here in this commentariat, then it is the opponents of (non…-)
eugenics who need to begin justifying their position before they can just shoot down companies by
pointing and saying ‘eugenics eww’. Of course, Dan L wasn’t doing that – he explicitly wrote ” I
think there’s a legitimate defense of that stance”.

June 17, 2020 at 9:16 am ~new~
I was considering people in general, not sensible people. I agree that saying “eugenics eww” would
be bad; luckily no-one is doing that.
Hide ↑
 LudwigNagasena says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:44 am ~new~
People are doing “eugenics” every day by selecting their partners. You can go to a sperm bank and
choose a donor (demand for short guys is so low many sperm banks don’t even accept their
sperm). What is more, government and lots of other entities in some way affect parenthood
decisions. Yet no one bats an eye.
Most people’s argument against “eugenics” can probably be summarized as “nazism bad”, I think
even anti-abortion activists have more reasonable arguments.

66. Hamiltonicity says:

June 16, 2020 at 3:31 pm ~new~
Also, part of the reason that anyone in a senior role in a large organisation gets paid large
multiples of everyone else’s salary is that they’re being paid to effectively represent that
organisation to would-be partners and donors, and that drastically reduces their freedom to
present anything other than an aggressively bland and centrist front to the world. If they piss
people off whose goodwill their organisation is depending on, then they have failed at a major part
of their job, and it is perfectly appropriate to fire them. (Of course, if they’re taking a stand for
something valuable then it could still be morally wrong to fire them, but to make that argument
you need to go beyond catch-all counter-arguments like freedom of expression and start digging
into the weeds of what was actually being expressed.)
Against that backdrop, while acting as senior VP of research and graduate studies for the whole of
his university, Hsu chose to appear on an alt-right podcast in order to talk about connections
between race and intelligence. Even at the start of 2017, Molyneux’s guest list reads like a who’s
who of the alt-right – Jared Taylor, Vox Day, Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos and Dinesh D’Souza, to
name a few – and Hsu would have known this if he had so much as checked Molyneux’ Wikipedia
page at the time.
Oh, and the people leading the charge appear to be Michigan’s graduate students. You know, the
ones he’s in charge of. The ones he’s meant to keep happy, as part of that high-paying job.
Knowing graduate students as I do, they probably wouldn’t be doing this if he’d been treating them
well for the last few years.
So all things considered, even ignoring all the other accusations, and even assuming it was all
negligence rather than malice, I still can’t muster much in the way of sympathy.
o albatross11 says:
June 16, 2020 at 3:53 pm ~new~

First, I think this is a fairly silly statement. People discussing ideas about genes, race, IQ scores,
crime rates, etc., may or may not have some social danger, but it is nowhere in the same universe
as working on smallpox samples. This kind of hyperbole sounds convincing until you think about it
for a minute.
Second, people discuss race recklessly and carelessly all the time–in private, online, and in various
kinds of media. For most mainstream media, only a specific subset of careless discussions of race
are commonly aired–ones that express broadly mainstream acceptable views.

As an example, how many times have you seen people talking about how every encounter of a
black man with the police is a super dangerous life-and-death affair, or that even calling the police
on a black man was endangering his life? That’s reckless, careless, inaccurate talk about race, but
pretty-much nobody cares, because it’s on-message. By contrast, someone like Charles Murray has
been pretty careful to make cautious and defensible statements about race and IQ over the last
several decades. He may be right or wrong, but he’s not tossing around made-up numbers or
hyperbole. That has not prevented him being called every name in the book and getting mobbed
when he has tried to speak in public. So as best I can tell, the issue with Hsu is not actually that he
was careless or reckless in his discussion of race, but rather that he expressed the wrong views. It
probably wouldn’t matter how carefully he expressed those views.
There’s a more fundamental issue here, though. Hsu is a very smart guy, exactly the kind of guy
we want thinking hard about our biggest social issues. To the extent that there are large areas of
the intellectual world that nobody (not even someone with Hsu’s stature and place in the world) is
allowed to discuss, those are areas where the public discussion is going to be a lot poorer. A lot of
major social problems in the US involve issues of race, education, crime, culture, etc. Making sure
that smart people know that discussing those issues (at least if you’re not mouthing exactly the
current platitudes on them) is a career-ender is an *excellent* way to ensure that most of those
smart people will avoid those issues, and so our chances of actually coming to any useful solutions
will go way down.
If it were 1920 instead of 2020, people would be saying exactly the things you’re saying about Hsu
about someone who irresponsibly discussed atheism and Darwinism in public, with all the offense
given to good Godfearing Christians and all the risk of undermining the very moral foundations of
Western civilization. And indeed, people did get shut down and run out of town for that sort of
thing back then. This didn’t make the world a better place. Nor will attempts to silence Hsu.

June 16, 2020 at 3:56 pm ~new~
People discussing ideas about genes, race, IQ scores, crime rates, etc., may or may not have some
social danger, but it is nowhere in the same universe as working on smallpox samples.
I blame Dawkins.
June 16, 2020 at 4:00 pm ~new~
I read a ton of Dawkins’ and Gould’s popularizations of evolution as a kid. I am very grateful that
the cancel-culture of my childhood (fundamentalists who were offended by references to evolution)
weren’t powerful enough to prevent them writing books that a clever 10-year-old kid could read.
June 16, 2020 at 4:07 pm ~new~
To be sure. I just wish Dawkins hadn’t gone on to popularize the idea of thinking of (other
people’s) ideas as infectious diseases.

Hide ↑
June 16, 2020 at 7:14 pm ~new~
Hsu is a very smart guy, exactly the kind of guy we want thinking hard about our biggest social
issues.
I disagree. Not because of his intelligence, but because he’s socially successful.
Too much “white man’s burden”, when the people with the motivation and insight to both recognize
and try to solve our biggest social issues are those who aren’t socially successful.
People discussing ideas about genes, race, IQ scores, crime rates, etc., may or may not have some
social danger, but it is nowhere in the same universe as working on smallpox samples
I believe Hamiltonicity was pointing out the risk to innocent bystanders should negative
implications on race or a smallpox aerosol slip out, not to the researchers themselves.
 Purplehermann says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:32 pm ~new~
People who are socially successful probably understand social things netter in general than those
who aren’t, no?

June 16, 2020 at 8:37 pm ~new~
But do they see the actual problems that the socially unsuccessful people encounter, or do they
merely think that the socially unsuccessful people terminated on the very same problems that they
had but overcame? (Potentially worse: Do they think that the socially unsuccessful’s problems are
that the unsuccessful are not like them? And that the solution is thus to make the unsuccessful
more like them? https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/16/open-thread-156-25/#comment-
916126 )
Hide ↑
 ChelOfTheSea says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:37 pm ~new~
> People discussing ideas about genes, race, IQ scores, crime rates, etc., may or may not have
some social danger, but it is nowhere in the same universe as working on smallpox samples. This
kind of hyperbole sounds convincing until you think about it for a minute.
I mean…I actually think it understates the problem.
Typical death rates from smallpox in the mid-1800s were on the order of 1 per few thousand per
year in the West, or ballpark a lifetime risk of death from smallpox of ~1 in 100 or so depending on
the exact year you look at. (https://ourworldindata.org/smallpox#all-charts-preview) Smallpox had
about a 1-in-3 risk of death even with modern medicine, so setting the effective cost of smallpox to
be double its actual deaths is probably aggressive (since there were at most ~3x many infections).
So the West was losing something on the order of ~1% of utils even if we assume deaths were
evenly distributed by age (which they presumably were not).
I don’t know what the util-equivalent cost of slavery is, but it’s gotta be really dang high. Let’s say
being a chattel slave is half as bad as being dead – this seems pretty conservative, given that
many slaves risked their lives for even the vastly reduced status of free blacks. At this time in
history, 14% of Americans were black; about 90% of those 14% were slaves. This means that the
US was, through slavery alone, losing 6% of its total utils even by a very conservative estimate.
In other words, even with really favorable assumptions, abolishing slavery was 6x better than
eradicating smallpox, at least in the US. Antinatalists should presumably think the case is far worse
– if being a free modern person is worse than nonexistence, surely being a horrifically abused slave
was!
But let’s take a modern estimate, shall we? Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the
differential in income in America is racist. Black Americans average an income of $33,000 a year,
white Americans average $68,000. Most studies show quality of life is roughly proportional to
log(income), so let’s assume black Americans suffer from racism to the tune of the log of their
income loss. Then a black life-year is about .93-as-good as a white life-year. In other words, we’re
losing 7% of black utils today to racism under this assumptions.
Blacks currently constitute about 13% of the US population. 7% of that 13%’s utils comes out to
just shy of 1% of total American utils. Under the very worst assumptions possible, COVID if left
totally unchecked would kill something on the order of 2-3% of Americans, skewed heavily towards
the already sick and elderly, and thus cost well under 1% of total utils over the lifetimes of
everyone involved.
In other words, unless you think the income differential doesn’t come from racism – which seems
difficult to believe, given that it dates to an era no one doubts was hilariously racist – racism in
modern America is worse than a completely uncontrolled COVID epidemic. You know, the epidemic
we shut down literally the entire country, plunged the nation into the worst economic crisis since
the Great Depression, spent literal trillions to contain, and all sat inside for months being miserable
for.
Or indeed, which this blog has taken months of posts to discuss without a word on race issues.
I’m really disappointed to see Scott defending this guy.

> There’s a more fundamental issue here, though. Hsu is a very smart guy, exactly the kind of guy
we want thinking hard about our biggest social issues.
Plenty of smart guys devote their talents to terribly damaging ideologies. Conditional on the belief
that these views are not only wrong but dangerous-to-the-point-of-being-worse-than-covid wrong,
you want him as far away from promoting those ideologies as humanly possible. Conditional on
him being smart + his ideology being bad, he represents a threat on the order of 4-5 logs of the
entire population’s utils if he’s successful in promoting that ideology.

 JayT says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:00 pm ~new~
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the differential in income in America is racist. Black
Americans average an income of $33,000 a year, white Americans average $68,000.
This isn’t quite right, because this is household income. There are fairly major differences in the
makeup of households between white and black Americans. The difference in median income per
worker is much closer, $40K vs $29. So, for your numbers to work, you would need to explain the
household makeup differences with racism, which I doubt is the main confounder, unless racism
causes people to have more children.

June 16, 2020 at 8:44 pm ~new~
Fair enough, though I’ll point out that household size is somewhat confounded by income (living
alone is expensive, as anyone in the Bay Area can attest). Using individual income gets a loss of
3%, or about half the value I quoted. nevertheless, “half as bad as worst-case COVID” is still very
very very bad.
Hide ↑
 zero says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:05 pm ~new~
What is Steve Hsu’s ideology?

June 16, 2020 at 8:49 pm ~new~
In the minds of the people attacking him? Presumably they believe he is in support of the status
quo re: racism, either implicitly (by supporting the idea that it’s caused by difference in ability as
opposed to discrimination) or explicitly (they think he’s lying about more direct underlying racism).
Me personally? I certainly think the first is true, and Hsu doesn’t seem to particularly deny it,
either. And someone hanging out with Stefan Molyneux (who is absolutely undoubtedly racist in the
second sense) in 2017 and promoting the notion that racism either doesn’t exist or isn’t the
dominant factor in achievement gaps is under a hell of a lot of suspicion of the latter, too.
Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:17 pm ~new~
@ChelOfTheSea In his posts I’ve seen, he made it pretty clear that we don’t know whether there
are significant “deep” differences between races. He didn’t assert that there are.
Hide ↑
 Gerry Quinn says:

June 16, 2020 at 8:52 pm ~new~
I must have missed the bit where Hsu promotes slavery.

June 16, 2020 at 8:59 pm ~new~
The comparison in the post to which I replied was to smallpox, which also no longer exists, and
that post claimed the two weren’t comparable. So I wanted to address that first. If you want a
modern comparison, you could scroll two paragraphs down.

Hide ↑
 Clutzy says:
June 16, 2020 at 10:42 pm ~new~
The comparison in the post to which I replied was to smallpox, which also no longer exists, and that
post claimed the two weren’t comparable. So I wanted to address that first. If you want a modern
comparison, you could scroll two paragraphs down.
I don’t see anywhere people making a claim that smallpox and slavery are not comparable social
ills that it is good to have eliminated in the USA. The claim is that comparing smallpox research
and IQ research is not a good comparison. Firstly, the emergent risks are totally different.
Smallpox had low death rates during early America because people were mostly already infected,
or were cowpox infected, or the weak had died from another disease already. Smallpox today
would be being released into a population with several generations of unvaccinated, never infected,
people with wonky immune systems (see, peanut allergies). Its a possible pandemic that would
make Covid-19 look like a blip if it got rolling.
OTOH, these dangerous IQ ideas are already known to the super racists, they can’t do anything,
and they have plenty of studies to cite. Here are some mild policy goals that they have basically 0
chance of implementing even with 100 respected professors on their side:

Eliminating Affirmative Action
Reducing 3rd World Immigration
Increasing Domestic Immigration Enforcement
Reducing Welfare
Reducing Foreign Aid
These things are all several overton windows away from an outbreak of slavery or reformatting the
US into a white ethnostate.

Hide ↑
 Cliff says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:05 pm ~new~
difficult to believe
Curious what you think of this post I ran into recently. It asserts that blacks, hispanics and whites
all have essentially the same income conditional on IQ.

June 17, 2020 at 12:59 pm ~new~
At a minimum, it needs to explain why the income gap has been relatively stable since a time
everyone agrees was racist to the point of grossly denying blacks economic opportunity. Claiming
that denial of access to well-connected institutions, investment capital, and the halls of power had
literally no effect in the 1960s seems prima facie indefensible.

But this step, for example:
> There are reports of income from a number of different sources in the NLSY79. Only two of these
— salaries, wages, and tips and net business and farm income — were used in the calculation of
my permanent income measure; the rest, such as unemployment compensation and capital gains,
were excluded. Both of the variables used are top-coded so that all values above a cutoff — which
was $100,000 in 1989-1993 and the top 2% ever since — have been replaced with the average of
the values above the cut-off. If a respondent didn’t have reported income from either source for at
least five of nine possible years, he or she was excluded from the analysis. Respondents reporting
a permanent income of zero were also dropped. This led to a sample size of 4615.
…seems hard to defend right out the gate. In a discussion in which access to capital is a critically
important factor (given that no one contests that blacks certainly did not start with much capital!),
he discards capital gains? This methodology sticks Jeff Bezos close to median white household
income.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 3:15 pm ~new~
ChelOfTheSea:
I am not sure if his methodology is the right one (this is pretty far from my expertise!), but I think
this is an important question to research. And I think this quote is wrong:

At a minimum, it needs to explain why the income gap has been relatively stable since a time
everyone agrees was racist to the point of grossly denying blacks economic opportunity. Claiming
that denial of access to well-connected institutions, investment capital, and the halls of power had
literally no effect in the 1960s seems prima facie indefensible.
Let’s suppose we somehow do this study really carefully, and discover that blacks and whites have
the same income conditioned on their IQ. I think we all agree that this is an outcome that *could*
come from this kind of study, right?
Now, if we had that finding, I think it would be *surprising* that overt discrimination in living
memory hadn’t had more of an impact, but I don’t see that it would contradict the finding.
The fact that relative income for blacks relative to whites hasn’t changed much over time seems
like it’s a separate surprising fact that would be interesting to explore, but I don’t think it tells us
much about how much of the income gap at any given time is based on the IQ gap. After all, the
IQ gap has probably not changed all that much over that span of time. What has changed is that
we eliminated a ton of overt discrimination and probably even more covert discrimination, because
I’m pretty sure white Americans are much less prejudiced against blacks now than in 1970, we
adopted affirmative action programs, etc. It’s interesting to ask why that didn’t close that gap.
And by contrast, suppose we ran this kind of study very carefully and found that blacks made a lot
less money than whites of the same IQ. That would also be a big result. It would poke some pretty
big holes in the argument that the average income difference is just a reflection of the average IQ
difference.
So, I favor seeing many people do this kind of study, using whatever data they can, and publishing
the results widely. I favor people discussing those results in public, whichever way they go, without
threat of getting fired for doing so. I think making this a radioactive area to study unless you are
very careful to ensure that you get politically acceptable results means that we don’t get reliable
answers to these questions. This is why I think the attempt to cancel people like Hsu is a big
mistake.
Hide ↑
June 16, 2020 at 9:43 pm ~new~
This is an apples-to-aircraft-carriers comparison wrt degrees of agency.
If you run a smallpox research lab, you can plausibly be the sole but-for cause of a hugely deadly
smallpox epidemic that would not have happened without your individual actions.
If you are a researcher commenting on your views on the causes of group outcome disparities, you
cannot plausibly be the but-for cause of the persistence of a whole hugely deadly system of social
oppression that would not have persisted without your individual actions.
 Kaitian says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:10 am ~new~
Unless you make an effort to personally infect people everywhere you go, other people still have to
spread the smallpox released by your “individual actions”. So the real question is whether racist
opinions are a mind virus (some people honestly believe this) or a legitimate part of the societal
conversation (some people honestly believe that).

Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:39 am ~new~
@Kaitian Right now, only very few people have access to smallpox virus. If one of them makes a
mistake and releases it, it may cause a deadly epidemic. If none of them makes a mistake, there is
no smallpox epidemic.
It’s unlikely that a single person can come up with such a convincing argument for racism that it
will, through being spread by others, make society make massively more racist than if he stays
silent. There are quite a few people discussing race and genetics already, a few of them using it to
justify racism. One person (who is not arguing for racism, albeit he can presumably be
misinterpreted) can’t make as much of a difference as the smallpox analogy suggests. If we want
to make an epidemic analogy, it’s more like, say, a COVID superspreader going to a concert: he
may be responsible for a few thousand extra infections down the line, but not for the whole
epidemic.
Hide ↑
June 16, 2020 at 11:26 pm ~new~
difficult to believe, given that it dates to an era no one doubts was hilariously racist
That doesn’t follow. Let’s say we all agree that the past was hilariously racist, and there was an
income differential then. Does it follow that if there’s an income differential now it must be due to
racism? No, because you need to establish that racism is the only thing that can contribute to
income differentials. And since Nigerian-Americans have one of the highest incomes, it suggests we
should have a more complex explanation for differences in income between groups.
June 16, 2020 at 11:38 pm ~new~
So what you’re saying is: “The persistent wealth gap between white and black Americans, which I
acknowledge was established due to incredibly racist practices, is now actively maintained at
similar levels by something that is not racism. As evidence, I present the fact that new black
immigrants arrived in the interim, and their property wasn’t immediately confiscated.”
To be more charitable, I think the steel-manned version of your argument would be something like
“Racist policies in the early and mid-20th century created a wealth gap that passively self-
perpetuates without any active racism.” I would dispute that characterization but think it’s a
reasonable position.
Hide ↑
 davidoj says:
June 16, 2020 at 11:47 pm ~new~
You are putting words in teageegeepea’s mouth (“property wasn’t immediately confiscated”,
“passively self-perpetuates”) and ignoring key points they made (“Nigerian-Americans have one of
the highest incomes”). I think your summary of their argument is highly unsatisfactory.
Hide ↑
 Clutzy says:
June 16, 2020 at 11:54 pm ~new~
So what you’re saying is: “The persistent wealth gap between white and black Americans, which I
acknowledge was established due to incredibly racist practices, is now actively maintained at
similar levels by something that is not racism. As evidence, I present the fact that new black
immigrants arrived in the interim, and their property wasn’t immediately confiscated.”
You yourself try to prove too much. There is no evidence the wealth gap was established due to
racist practices. It could, and probably did, predate them.

Hide ↑
 B_Epstein says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:33 am ~new~
@gallowstree What happened to all values between 0 and 1? Surely we might contemplate an
explanation that blamed some of the initial disparity on hilarious racism, some of which is being
passively perpetuated but some of which is reinforced by current-day racism. But unless we’re
willing to consider alternatives to “all that has happened and is still happening is pure racism”, we’ll
never be able to get there.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 9:16 pm ~new~
I attempted to post a reply but the inclusion of links seems to have caught it in the spam filter. In
the event that’s recovered, this comment can be deleted.

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 9:27 pm ~new~
But unless we’re willing to consider alternatives to “all that has happened and is still happening is
pure racism”, we’ll never be able to get there.
And if we’re going to insist that it’s been nothing but racism all along, then what is it that we’re
supposed to be worrying about, again? That people like Hsu will persuade us to abandon the anti-
racist policies which, by this very hypothesis, haven’t made a damned bit of difference?
Hide ↑
 textor says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:15 am ~new~
Plenty of smart guys devote their talents to terribly damaging ideologies.
Surely a claim like this is best not preceded by over a page of making the most contrived argument
imaginable for “talking about IQ etc. is [quantifiably] as bad as subjecting the entire African
American population to racism, and {handwave handwave} morally no different from enforcing
chattel slavery”. This calculus is an attempt at Eulering if I’ve ever seen one.
But more importantly, your utilitarian standard ought to apply to every side.
Hsu is very interested in embryo selection for intelligence, but most of actual work his company
was doing is about screening for congenital disabilities. Some have already brought up Kevin Bird,
who seems to play a major role in this movement (he certainly endorses it, and leads the Grad
Union behind it). Kevin Bird, unlike you, is not a utilitarian. So, among other things, he has to say,
look it up on Twitter if you wish (I’ll quote at length, despite redundancy, to make it clear there’s
no misrepresentation or spur-of-the-moment rthetoric going on):

No [using violence against the disabled group of people] isn’t what makes [eliminating disabilities]
bad, what makes it bad is accepting a hierarchy of value and using it to decide who makes the cut
Deafness isn’t a disease or a thing that needs to be removed from the population… There’s simply no
reason to decide deafness is an undesirable condition that ought not be allowed to exist in the world.
That’s an identical position and way of thinking to eugenics… Deafness doesn’t need “correction”.
People shouldn’t desire to eliminate disabilities they should desire to make a world
that accommodates disabilities. The former is deeply immoral … I don’t think not hearing
is inherently worse than hearing, though I imagine some people would decide to hear for their own
reasons. Certainly not all deaf people would … It’s a morally charged issue and I won’t stop framing
in the proper light …
That whole judgement is conditional on what kind of society we live in though. You’re acting as if
disabilities are inherently and objectively worse off, I think that’s a deeply troubled perspective.
And so on and so forth. It should be obvious, but this is the mindset leading to this cancellation
attempt. In fact, the union acknowledges as much in their list of accusations:

Eugenics is dangerous and harmful, especially to individuals with disabilities. Their lived
experiences are not aberrations to be removed from the population. Hsu advocates for
embryo selection specifically to remove embryos with the possibility of developing an
illness/disease/disability:
Note also that Bird, being a geneticist, is aware that embryo selection is a viable solution, while
hoping for future “adequate treatment” for congenital conditions is less grounded:
In a more realistic sense too it’s also not as common a solution. Pretty much everything could be
largely (though not completely) eliminated by genetic screening but magic pills will be few and far
between
The core problem isn’t that eugenics forcibly removes people, it’s the imposition of a hierarchy of
human value. It’s a bit appalling you don’t understand that… Deciding to screen out embryos that
are identified as high risk of being deaf implicitly puts them at lower moral worth.
I think it’s more moral to treat and care for people than keep them from ever existing. These aren’t
exclusively genetic problems, there are social treatments and causes. I have a heart defect I want
affordable care, not CRISPRing or screening me out of exist as an embryo
He has also clearly stated that he’s not just fuming, but thinks all parents ought to be denied a
choice in the matter:

Q. not sure what the nature of your condition is, but you’re telling me… you’d rather undergo
potentially invasive surgery or take medicine every day or whatever than simply not have the
condition in the first place, because the latter sounds too “eugenics”-y for you?
A. Yup, and I will need open heart surgery and constant medication and that’s much more preferable
and ethical to me
Q. You’re entitled to that preference. do you think most people with your condition have that
preference? do you think it’s fair to force that preference onto other people? because by denying
parents the ability to remove it from their children, that’s basically what you’re doing.
A. Yes, and the goal of society should be that it creates a world where all kinds of people are
supported and accommodated and don’t face undue hardship by virtue of failing to fit an ideal
I see Nature claim that Every year, an estimated 7.9 million infants (6% of worldwide births) are
born with serious birth defects. Although some congenital defects can be controlled and treated, an
estimated 3.2 million of these children are disabled for life. I would like to implore you to, in the
spirit of sportsmanship, calculate the loss of utils which follows from projects like Dr. Hsu’s being
successfully canceled in perpetuity, due to the ideology of smart guys like Bird prevailing. You
would do well to consider: quality of life with disorders ranging from congenital deafness,
schizophrenia and Down’s syndrome (he specifically opposes screening for Down’s) to Harlequin
ichthyosis; the length of lives of the affected; monetary expenditure (and money, as we know, is
the unit of caring) on lifetimes of palliative care and treatments, which could have been allocated
elsewhere; chilling effect on adjacent fields; and some other things. It would also be nice of you to
acknowledge that, while Hsu has never said or did anything remotely close to promoting racial
discrimination, and the movement which could be at all plausibly described as “racist” is in
shambles, as Kevin aptly describes (“Instead of Nobel Laureates and respected tenure track
faculty, the new generation of race scientists on the Pioneer Fund dole are untrained post-
graduates”), and making racism worse would be to push against the status quo, Kevin and
Michigan Graduate Employee Union are very unequivocal in their ideas, represent the chic
mainstream of current US politics and promote the continuation of the status quo (no increase in
embryo selection); so a priori there’s a much, much, much higher chance of them realizing the
vision of no embryo selection ever, compared to Hsu, who by your assessment is “a threat on the
order of 4-5 logs of the entire population’s utils”.
One caveat: I am not sure how you would account for the loss in utils due to hypothetical disabled
embryos “being screened out of existence”; in my opinion this is an issue on par with the trolley
problem. But not only is Bird a non-utilitarian, he’s very vocally pro-choice and doesn’t care much
for embryos in general:

I’m not pro-life but deciding to have an abortion because you don’t want any child is very different
than having an abortion because you don’t want a particular kind of child. The decision made wrt
the embryo has implications for how we view human life and human value at large… No, I’m pro-
choice but abortion and contraception are not decisions based on value ranking, it’s uniformly
applied to any possible embryo. They don’t want any kid, not THAT particular kid. The ranking and
selecting of “better” embryos is what is dangerous and morally bankrupt.
So I reckon you can assume it to be irrelevant.
I’m honestly curious as to what the figure would be.

June 17, 2020 at 3:56 am ~new~
What are his views on abortion?

Hide ↑
 textor says:
June 17, 2020 at 4:09 am ~new~
@Purplehermann See the last quote block; it’s pretty clear IMO. He’s pro-choice, and abortion is
morally okay, UNLESS it’s to prevent a disability, or really impose any other value-laden selection
on the outcome of pregnancy. Because that would have “implications for how we view human life
and human value at large”, and constitute “accepting a hierarchy of value and using it to decide
who makes the cut”.
He magnanimously allows exceptions, though:

I think the best line is at fatal or extremely debilitating conditions with no present treatment.
Otherwise it’s a conscious choice to choose eliminating a problem over treatment and acceptance
(So maybe – maybe – if the cancellation of Hsu’s project stays precisely on the straight and narrow
course Kevin approves of, Harlequin ichthyosis would still be allowed to screen for. I still urge
@ChelOfTheSea to consider the alternative scenario – after all, “no selection against disabilities,
eugenics is wrong” is a much more stable state, politically, than “ugh fine, in this case eugenics is
okay, but no further”).
Would be fascinating material for Scott’2014, with a sprinkle of 2018 – Tails coming apart, and all
that. But alas.

In fact I digged most of this by grifting off Reddit doing a Twitter search of the form abortion
(from:itsbirdemic) and exploring different subthreads (Twitter is… a suboptimal platform for
discussion). You can do the same.
I also have to say in case he lurks here (and odds are, he does) on the off-chance he considers it
inconvenient that I’ve archived it and so erasure will achieve little.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 5:10 am ~new~
Ah, yup.
I wonder how he reacted to feminists aborting because they don’t want boys
Hide ↑
 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:46 am ~new~
I mean, basically all abortion is “choosing to eliminate a problem over treatment and acceptance”.
Shouldn’t we keep lots of unwanted children with impoverished mothers around so that we can all
benefit from their authentic lived experiences?
Of course not.
Fundamentally I find this point of view just as disgusting as the bad version of eugenics. Disabled
people are not zoo animals to be kept around so the rest of us can read intriguing books by Temple
Grandin, or see plays about Helen Keller, or give Oscars to Daniel Day Lewis. Is it a shame that
polio is eradicated since it makes it less likely that we’ll get another president in a wheelchair? Of
course not.
Part of the issue here is that the “anti-eugenic because disabilities are interesting” conversation is
almost tautologically dominated by people with interesting disabilities. The autistic people saying
they wouldn’t trade their life for a neurotypical one aren’t the severe cases who can’t communicate
or who have debilitating or injurious compulsive behaviors. The stories we hear about blind or deaf
people are largely the ones who overcame this disability in a notable way and now it’s a positive
defining trait for them. They aren’t the average disabled person who is just like anyone else,
except life is harder.

Generally more choice is better than less choice. If we eliminate congenital blindness, or Type 1
diabetes, or what have you, anybody is perfectly welcome to stab their own eyes out or poison
themselves such that they require a daily injection to not die, if they feel that that will give them
some sort of unique lived experience. The people born with those conditions (and the people who
must care for them) don’t have a choice, and I’m guessing most would really prefer to have one.
From a purely utilitarian perspective, accommodations are expensive. As long as basically any
other problem exists, resources we spend accommodating/treating congenital disabilities are
resources that can’t be spent on those other problems.
The only good steel man I can think of is something like “we need a critical mass of disabled people
to make sure they are accommodated rather than treated as freaks”. Ignoring the IMHO horrible
implications of forcing people unnecessarily into disability to make the unavoidably disabled better
off, I think even that falls flat. Whether we accommodate disabilities has as much to do with how
rich and compassionate the society is. And besides, a smaller disabled population means we could
apply more resources to the remaining individuals – with a million paraplegics, maybe society can
only afford ramps and wheelchairs, but with a thousand they all get a pair of kickass bionic legs or
whatever.
Hide ↑
 Ketil says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:48 am ~new~
Then a black life-year is about .93-as-good as a white life-year. In other words, we’re losing 7% of
black utils today to racism under this assumptions.
I don’t think this is quite correct. If utils ~ log(income), then a doubling of income would add a
constant number of utils, and not a percentage. (Otherwise, you would get a smaller percentage
loss if you convert the income to cents)
June 17, 2020 at 8:35 am ~new~
Problem #1: What is the net effect of a prominent person discussing racial IQ differences and
potential causes in public, vs being prevented from doing so? I find it very difficult to believe that
the net effect is in any way comparable to just back-of-the-envelope summing up the impact of all
current-day racism. In fact, people discuss racial issues all the time, and people being people, often
they’re careless or just wrong about everything. Racial IQ differences are mainstream known things
in intelligence research, and more and more of the papers and conference presentations are
available online. _The Bell Curve_ sold a lot of copies, Steve Sailer’s blog is probably going to
continue operation, and much of the public has a fuzzy and not-always-accurate notion of some
kind of racial hierarchy of intelligence that puts blacks at the bottom and Asians and Jews at the
top. Also, a huge amount of racism has nothing to do with IQ–plenty of people hate Asians and
Jews, for example, and that’s certainly not because of thinking them inferior due to their average
IQ scores[1].
By contrast, if you want to work with a very dangerous pathogen, you have to go to great
measures to prevent it escaping because that pathogen widespread isn’t in the world right now, so
its introduction to the community could kill a bunch of people.
Even assuming these ideas are toxic and dangerous, Hsu working on them is a lot more like a
virologist working on seasonal flu (if it escapes, it will just be one more strain of flu circulating)
than like a virologist working on smallpox or ebola or something.
Those are just not very similar situations.
Problem #2:
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the differential in income in America is racist.
This is one of the things that is specifically being questioned in discussions about racial differences
in IQ and behavior, right? How much, if any, of the racial IQ difference is due to racism? How about
the racial difference in crime rate, or unwed births?
Those are all relevant to a discussion about differences in income. It’s surely not a shock that
women who have children without a man around are poorer than women who avoid that, or that
your employment prospects are not improved by a stint in prison. It’s *really* not a surprise that
many high-paying jobs like being an engineer or accountant or doctor are intellectually demanding
enough that people with a below-average IQ just can’t do them.
To untangle the question of how much of that income difference can be ascribed to (say) IQ
differences, we’d need to dig into exactly the topics that you seem not to want discussed openly.
Similarly to untangle whether IQ differences are somehow driven by racism (the normal kind or the
structural kind that involves lousy schools or bad role models or maybe chipping lead paint in
cheap urban housing), you’d need to dig into those topics that you don’t seem to want discussed.
I’m not sure how you can address that without allowing those discussions. And if those discussions
are going to happen (and they are, assuming we don’t repeal the first amendment, no matter how
many media and academic people get canceled for expressing the wrong views about them), then
it seems like we have a choice mainly about whether to try to dissuade the smartest, most
informed people from taking part in them. I do not think that’s going to improve the quality of
those discussions.
[1] Note that your back-of-the-envelope calculation of the impact of racism on blacks would have a
different sign if you did the same calculation for Asians or Jews.
June 17, 2020 at 11:26 am ~new~
First, I think this is a fairly silly statement. People discussing ideas about genes, race, IQ scores,
crime rates, etc., may or may not have some social danger, but it is nowhere in the same universe as
working on smallpox samples.
Yes.
I’m pretty sure that if you mishandle your smallpox samples, you lose your job right the hell now.
No second chances, because nobody wants their lab to be the one to blame for the next smallpox
epidemic.
You can mishandle your statements on race and genetics for years before anyone even starts to
seriously push for you to get demoted.
This is no different than any number of other hyperbolic analogies. There is an exaggeration in
everything, that’s how the meaning gets in.

o TracingWoodgrains says:
June 16, 2020 at 3:55 pm ~new~
My reply got eaten last time, possibly due to the links I included, so I’ll try again without links.
Googling should get anyone curious most of the way there. The person leading the charge appears
to be leader/founder of the grad student union Kevin Bird (Twitter @itsbirdemic, reddit
/u/stairway-to-kevin — I only mention names because he’s open about his identity on both),
someone with a long-standing personal animus against this community who also seems to have
made it his career mission to oppose any research suggesting any genetic basis for group
differences, particularly around intelligence.
“The student union opposes Hsu”, then, shouldn’t be taken as evidence that he’s treating the grad
students poorly, only that he’s gone against the crusade of one particularly influential grad student.
 Atlas says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:13 pm ~new~
The person leading the charge appears to be leader/founder of the grad student union Kevin Bird
(Twitter @itsbirdemic, reddit /u/stairway-to-kevin — I only mention names because he’s open about
his identity on both)
Oh, it’s that guy? Given what I’ve seen of his showing in open online debates on the merits of the
issues against people with the protection of pseudonyms, I can’t say I’m surprised that he finds it
easier to try to fire and intimidate people instead.

 Lambert says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:07 am ~new~
+1 My SU officially supports/opposes a bunch of things that i’ve never paid much attention to. You
just need to convince a majority of the sort of people who bother to vote on SU motions.
 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:03 am ~new~
What stinks is how much of a vicious cycle this ends up being. I ignored our student government
because their activities mostly consisted of drama between parties that changed every couple years
(because the “parties” were really just cliques centered around a couple of particular people) and
arguing about resolutions about Palestine and affirmative action.
Which of course meant that only the sort of people interested in that and willing to devote stupid
amounts of time to it ever really participated. Grad student unions have a little bit more actual pull,
but largely the same dynamic seems to dominate.
The transient membership doesn’t help either. No real incentive for long term thinking, and even
the leadership is still pretty wet-behind-the-ears.

o Jade North says:
June 16, 2020 at 3:56 pm ~new~

ones he’s in charge of. The ones he’s meant to keep happy, as part of that high-paying job. Knowing
graduate students as I do, they probably wouldn’t be doing this if he’d been treating them well for the
last few years.
His job his to conduct research. The grad students are upset with the conclusions of his research.
The whole reason we have a principle of academic freedom is so researchers are free to discover
things that upset important constituents.

 keaswaran says:
June 16, 2020 at 4:01 pm ~new~
The job of an ordinary professor or grad student is to conduct research. The job of the VPR is *not*
to conduct research, but to do the public relations work and organizational work that enables
*others* to conduct research. I don’t know whether his work has in fact been helpful to the
research of the graduate students, but his research really shouldn’t enter into this, because the job
we are talking about is not a research job. (Though obviously it helps if the person in this job is
someone who has done research in the past, and possibly does some now.)
 zqed says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:39 pm ~new~
Hsu is both Vice President Research and a Professor. His job, in the latter capacity, is to conduct
research. It’s very hard to argue that the job descriptions of the two position are in some kind of
inherent conflict, as many (possibly a majority of) such posts across the country are held by
professors.
Besides, Vice President Research is not even a public relations position. One of my close friends is
Vice-chancellor Research at a UK university: he assesses research facilities, ensures data security
compliance, writes reports to research councils, allocates budget, and makes hiring decisions. None
of that is PR work.
It’s also difficult to argue that Hsu remaining VPR would affect anything: the interview took place 3
years ago, and Hsu remained VPR to general satisfaction and no backlash from industry partners or
funding agencies.
That aside, given what you said about the job of a VPR, would Hsu stepping down as VPR and
remaining a full MSU Professor be an acceptable outcome to you? If so, do you think it would be an
acceptable outcome to the cancel campaign? I doubt that.

June 16, 2020 at 7:46 pm ~new~
would Hsu stepping down as VPR and remaining a full MSU Professor be an acceptable outcome to
you? If so, do you think it would be an acceptable outcome to the cancel campaign? I doubt that.
This is literally what they’re asking for in their tweet and their petition. Maybe they’re lying and
would push even further if he gave them this inch? Maybe they aren’t lying but ignoring the
likelihood that the extended cancel campaign would push for more, and would be unwilling to then
turn on the campaign and say enough is enough?

Hide ↑
 zqed says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:55 am ~new~
What probability would you assign to the event “Hsu retains his professorship at Michigan State”
given “Hsu is dismissed from his position at Michigan State”?

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 9:13 am ~new~
I’m not in a position to guess any probability.

Hide ↑
 keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:39 pm ~new~
> What probability would you assign to the event “Hsu retains his professorship at Michigan State”
given “Hsu is dismissed from his position at Michigan State”?
I’ll give something <10% as the probability that Michigan State fires Hsu from the faculty,
conditional on Michigan State replaces Hsu as VPR.

Universities fire provosts and deans all the time, often for severe incompatibilities with some of the
other administrators or faculty they oversee. They usually either stick around as senior faculty (I've
been in departments with these people) or get a similar administrative position at another
university.
Can you point to any cases where any university has fully terminated someone who is in an
administrative position, where the person wasn't accused of a criminal act? Even the USC medical
school dean that was found with an ODed 21-year-old in his hotel room seems to have left to be
head of a pharma company, and resigned before they could demote him.
Hide ↑
o mitigatedchaos2 says:
June 16, 2020 at 4:18 pm ~new~
1.) Were any of his statements on race actually any more reckless than statements that Left-wing
academics (or, if you like, the institutions between us and left-wing academics) make frequently?
Concepts of collective racial moral liability actually strike me as far more reckless – whether
populations differ, regardless of whether it’s true, does not bundle an ‘ought’ in the way that
‘silence is violence’ or ‘this land is stolen’ does (to boil down what often uses more complicated
jargon about things like ‘being complicit in systems of colonial imperialism’).
2.) How is opposition to the research necessary for the distribution of genes between not only
human individuals but also human populations anything other than ethnonationalist supremacism?
I can buy that it’s not ethnonationalistic from the #trads who oppose all genetic research, but from
people who insist on tearing down traditions on the basis of progress, putting up barriers to
allowing people to modify their kid based on genes from outside their race, even if it’s just
appearance, is creating collective ethnic intellectual property.

o Pablo says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:05 pm ~new~
This comment seems intended to portray Hsu in the worst possible light and doesn’t strike me as a
good-faith attempt to analyze the current situation. I will note several problems with it:
1. To my knowledge, Hsu does not “d[o] scientific work on race”. His work on cognitive genomics
isn’t focused on group differences in intelligence or any other behavioral trait.
2. The comparison between “doing scientific work on race” and “working on smallpox samples” is
hyperbolic, as another commenter noted.
3. Hsu has not “piss[ed] off” “would-be partners and donors”. On the contrary, during his tenure
annual research expenditures rose from $500 million to $700 million.
4. Molyneux had recorded and released over 3,000 podcast episodes, with a correspondingly large
number of guests, by the time Hsu agreed to participate in his show. To cherry-pick a very small
sample and characterize it as a “who’s who of the alt-right” is intellectually dishonest. Perfectly
reasonable people, like James Flynn (from the Flynn Effect, and who was once the chairperson for
a civil rights organisation in the US South), had been past guests. And Molyneux himself had
participated as a guest in mainstream podcasts, including not one but several times in the Joe
Rogan Experience, one of the world’s post popular podcasts.

o grothor says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:44 pm ~new~

Knowing graduate students as I do, they probably wouldn’t be doing this if he’d been treating them
well for the last few years.
Nah, my experience with grad students (after spending roughly 8 years being one) is that the one
thing that gets them more excited than free food is politics. I’ve never seen a group of people that
had such a limited supply of free time and energy and chose to spend so much of it on political
fights. The likelihood that some subset (even a large subset) of grad students would initiate
something like this has almost no relation to whether he had been working in their best interest
over the years.

 Soy Lecithin says:

June 16, 2020 at 10:05 pm ~new~
I want to second this.
It’s hard to picture any of the grad students I know caring who the university-wide VP for research
is. The vast majority probably have no idea. On the other hand, many grad students are going to
know who Molyneaux is, and those who do probably have strong, negative opinions of him.
“Professor So-and-so appeared on Molyneaux’s podcast” is absolutely something you could get
politically active ones to care about.

o Aftagley says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:00 pm ~new~

That’s what gets me. I understand this is perhaps the intellectual equivalent of asking a rape victim
what they were wearing, but what benefit did Hsu think he would get out of appearing on
Molyneux’ show? It probably wasn’t money, it certainly wasn’t increased academic prestige, what
possible benefit would he get from it? If he had no clue who Molyneux was at the time… why would
he do an interview? If he knew who Molyneux was… why would he do an interview?

I get that we shouldn’t judge people by dumb stuff they do online, but it would be really helpful if
people would stop doing dumb stuff online.

 SamChevre says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:06 pm ~new~
In my observation, professors appear on random radio shows all the time–I always assumed that if
you thought you understood the world, helping others understand it too was the key attraction of
being a professor.
 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:49 am ~new~
Plus ego. It’s nice to be recognized as somebody who is worth talking to. Especially if it’s somebody
with an audience. Especially if it’s an audience you didn’t even realize you were reaching.
Digging much beyond that feels like looking a gift horse in the mouth.
 Clutzy says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:58 pm ~new~
Isn’t this just a super-duper double standard though? People recklessly talk about race and science
all the time. The current riots are the result of people yelling from the rooftops about how their
studies have proven systemic racism, etc exist. And all their science is less than 5% as rigorous as
the stuff Hsu does.

 Talexander Urok says:

June 16, 2020 at 9:30 pm ~new~
Suppose an Orthodox Jew were to say to someone in the process of leaving the Orthodox religion,
“I’m not a fan of shunning non-practicing Jews, but why do you got to eat your pork sandwich in
public? Why not just hide it, eat it at home, so other people don’t get angry?” You’d probably see
that as supremely missing the point. To us, eating pork is not a morally gray issue, it’s black and
white, there’s nothing wrong with it.
We don’t see anything morally wrong with appearing on Molyneux’ show. If you have something
issue with Molyneux, you take it up with him.

o 10240 says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:29 pm ~new~

Part of your argument seems to be “Even if there is nothing wrong with his views, many people
oppose them, so his views make him disreputable, which makes him the wrong person for vice
president of research; so people who ask MSU to fire him are right, and people who support him
and ask MSU to keep him are wrong”.
However, he hasn’t been disreputable so far, as far as we can tell from the fact that, as another
commenter said, he has had no problem attracting donors. The people currently attacking him
might have a chance to tarnish his reputation, but the very people who are trying to tarnish his
reputation can’t justify their demand that he be fired by him having a bad reputation. His
supporters, at the same time, are not only asking MSU to keep him, but also try to defend his
reputation; if they succeed, then MSU won’t need to fire him for reputational reasons. Assuming
Hsu hasn’t done something inherently wrong that would justify firing him even outside of
reputational concerns, I see no reason to oppose that effort.
This is a general argument I tend to make against justifying actions of organizations on PR grounds
(assuming the actions would otherwise be unjustified): We, the public decide what is good or bad
PR. Those who demand an organization to make an action are the people who make it bad PR not
to do it. Those who demand the organization not to make the action are trying to reverse the
incentives, making it worse PR to do the action and better PR not to do it. Assuming the action is
not inherently justified (except possibly on PR grounds), their efforts shouldn’t be opposed on the
grounds of “but the organization has to do it for PR reasons”.

o Atlas says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:09 pm ~new~

Even at the start of 2017, Molyneux’s guest list reads like a who’s who of the alt-right – Jared Taylor,
Vox Day, Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos and Dinesh D’Souza, to name a few – and Hsu would have
known this if he had so much as checked Molyneux’ Wikipedia page at the time.
Yeah, I 100% oppose the attempted cancellation of Dr. Hsu, but I generally think it’s really
important to be honest, and I don’t think one can honestly say that Molyneux was much less
“controversial” in 2017 than he is now. I was semi-regularly listening to his podcast back then—in
fact I quite distinctly remember the episode with Dr. Hsu—and he was consistently propounding
the views about population genetics, psychometrics and his view of their political and social
significance that the woke mob finds so abhorrent back then.

o metacelsus says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:24 pm ~new~
The grad student union is generally far to the left of the general grad student population. (This is
true at Harvard where I am a grad student.)
So the union wanting to cancel him doesn’t mean he’s been mistreating grad students.
 Deiseach says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:01 am ~new~
All student unions are to the left of the student population; from the things I’ve heard 90% of the
students don’t care one way or the other (save when the union organises a protest which is treated
as a great excuse to skip classes and head for the pub for day drinking) and internally it’s all
internal politics to gain office (and hence influence with the administration) and build up experience
for careers in actual politics, be that as advisers, campaign members or trying for elected office
themselves.
When I read that it was the student union calling for his head, I just nodded and said to myself
“yeah of course”.
June 17, 2020 at 8:04 am ~new~
+1. Everyone less than maximally political hasn’t got the energy for extracurriculars.
o zqed says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:52 pm ~new~

senior VP of research and graduate studies
I don’t know where you got this from. Hsu is VP of research and innovation, and is not responsible
for graduate studies at MSU. That would be Denise Maybank.
The interview in question happened over three years ago. If the would-be partners and donors had
complaints about Hsu, there would have been some visible evidence of that by now, in the form of
decreased investment and opportunities, private or public complaints to the President, etc. which
would have led to him being dismissed as VPR anyway. None of that happened. In fact, the people
complaining right now are still not the partners, donors, the public, or people off whose goodwill
their organization is depending on.

June 16, 2020 at 9:16 pm ~new~

ones he’s in charge of. The ones he’s meant to keep happy, as part of that high-paying job. Knowing
graduate students as I do, they probably wouldn’t be doing this if he’d been treating them well for the
last few years.
“Many of the actual accusations they’ve publicly made against him are provably false, but I’m sure
that there is more wrongdoing that they aren’t sharing with us for some reason!”
o gbdub says:
June 16, 2020 at 10:23 pm ~new~
Michigan and Michigan State (Hsu’s employer) are two different universities.
o A Definite Beta Guy says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:21 am ~new~

Is this some new meme I need to be aware of? If so, who is advancing this new meme?
This meme looks extremely dangerous and has universal applicability. I can’t really think of
anything else that can stifle debate faster than assuming all non-conformist thoughts are
equivalent to weaponizable infectious diseases. I suspect, like in this domain, it will be applied in
every other in an asymmetrical fashion: to use an example in economics, advocating austerity is
now dangerous and costs lives, while advocating QE infinity is right-and-just and it’s bastard step-
child MMT is simply allowed to propagate without check (and any rebuttal to it needs to be phrased
in the most careful terms, lest it be confused with “austerity” which is as bad as smallpox).
 Lambert says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:34 am ~new~
What if the public finds out about the idea of comparing memes to smallpox and it starts spreading
exponentially?
June 17, 2020 at 7:26 am ~new~
Then we will need to find a less destructive but similar meme and spread it to protect people from
the much more dangerous one. Maybe check out what milkmaids are tweeting….
 Lambert says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:42 am ~new~
But then people would argue about which was the dangerous version of the meme. Each side would
get outraged by the other’s suggestion that their meme was the smallpox meme. You’d get a
vicious cycle of two memes self-reinforcing in a way that makes it look like two morphologies of the
same memeplex.
Hide ↑
o gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:38 am ~new~
The thing about smallpox or Ebola research is that, despite the obvious and direct dangers involved
in studying the pathogen we still do it. Because there are obvious good things that can come from
this research.
Much of the anti-Hsu crowd (and this opinion has even been expressed here) doesn’t believe that
these things should be studied carefully, they pretty clearly believe they shouldn’t be studied at all
(or I guess studied but never talked about, but for the purposes of advancing science that amounts
to the same thing).
This throws the baby out with the bath water. It’s hard to treat disease if you don’t study the
pathogen, and it is hard to treat racial disparity if you don’t study all aspects of it.
67. Aapje says:

June 16, 2020 at 3:30 pm ~new~
The clinical effectivess of Dutch fixed expressions is almost as high as SSRIs
‘Buiten de waard rekenen’ = Calculating without the innkeeper
Making a wrong prediction, in particular when making assumptions about what other people want.
For example, when making a decision that your partner disagrees with and makes you walk back
on.
‘Buiten kijf’ = without ‘kijf’
Everyone agrees it is true. ‘Kijven’ is an obsolete word for swearing or fighting, so it literally means
that no one is going to fight over it. Related to the obsolescent ‘kiften,’ which means arguing.
‘Buiten westen zijn’ = Being outside the west
Having fainted or being unconscious. A 16th century nautical term. The North sea is largely to the
west of The Netherlands, and many ships hugged the coast. However, during bad weather, they
would go further west to avoid the shoals. If they went too far out, they could get lost.
‘Buiten zijn boekje gaan’ = Going outside their book
Violating the rules, in particular when someone exceeds their authority.
‘Buitenbeentje’ = Outside leg
Misfit. Comes from people who walk/stand at an angle, their upper body not being above their legs.
Originally referred to a bastard, but now has the more logical meaning of misfit.
‘Schuinmarcheren’ = Oblique marching
Someone who commonly breaks the rules, often used specifically for those who cheat on a partner.
‘He has a steekje los’ = ‘He has a stitch loose’
He is a weirdo. This used to be specifically used for women who had sex before marriage, but later
became unisex and lost its association with loose morals.

June 16, 2020 at 7:27 pm ~new~
Them’s kijven words.

o AlphaGamma says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:21 am ~new~

‘Buiten westen zijn’ = Being outside the west
In English, to ”go west” means to die. Some people have suggested that this refers to the
westward journey taken by condemned criminals in London from Newgate Prison to the gallows at
Tyburn.
This is unlikely to be true- the last hanging at Tyburn was in 1783, but the term is not attested
before the 19th century. It seems to originally have been a Scottish or Irish usage, that became
more generally popular during the First World War.


June 17, 2020 at 6:15 am ~new~
It’s a racial memory of the journey to the Halls of Mandos, which has been part of English
mythology since long before 1783.

 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:07 am ~new~
But in American English, “Go West, young man” means something quite different. (Although it
would indeed be funny if it had a double meaning if “fuck off and die”).
June 17, 2020 at 11:34 am ~new~
Large numbers of Scots and especially Irish emigrated to America in the early to mid-1800s. They
were mostly not dead, but they sure weren’t coming back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csNlKTRJiS0
Probably not the connection there, but it’s not out of the question IMO.
68. JohnBuridan says:
June 16, 2020 at 3:20 pm ~new~
WANTED: Signs of hope. Any news related to positive trends in American culture or politics wanted.
o zero says:
June 16, 2020 at 4:26 pm ~new~
Pollution is down!
o Freddie deBoer says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:06 pm ~new~
My book is coming out.

o SamChevre says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:18 pm ~new~
Violent crime is WAY down. Homicides per capita (excluding abortions) are lower than they’ve been
since 1960.
 Matthias says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:11 pm ~new~
Per capita income is also way up since the 1960s. And that includes are big population increase,
too. (And the common inflation measures are likely overstated.)
Smoking is down.
Obesity might have stopped it’s advance?

 keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:42 pm ~new~
Do you have statistics on homicides in the last three years? Some people were alleging some kind
of “Ferguson effect”, whereby anti-police protests were making homicides go up. In 2016, several
major cities did have their first noticeable turnaround in the declines they had all been having for
the previous decades, but it was noisy, and I couldn’t find information showing whether the decline
had restarted or if the Ferguson effect had been real.

June 16, 2020 at 8:49 pm ~new~
Trump’s approval ratings are in the low forties.
Cops’ political capital has plummeted.
The Supreme Court has decided that making decisions that have a person’s sex as factor violate
anti-discrimination laws. No news on whether “Is water wet?” has been granted cert.
 keaswaran says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:43 pm ~new~
To be fair, “Trump’s approval ratings are in the low forties” has been true for basically his entire
presidency (there might have been a moment where it passed 45.0%, and a moment where it
dropped below 40.0%, but they were brief).

June 16, 2020 at 8:51 pm ~new~
The Supreme Court ruled this week 6-3 to ban LGBT employment discrimination nationwide.
 gbdub says:
June 16, 2020 at 10:12 pm ~new~
The Supreme Court dealt another blow to separation of powers and representative democracy by
adopting a convoluted interpretation of plain words in order to deliver a desired result, all because
Congress continues to be too damn dysfunctional to do its damn job, and I can’t even complain
about it without sounding like a dick because fundamentally I agree with the ultimate outcome? It’s
hope, but a bittersweet one.
EDIT: also they decided not to examine qualified immunity.


June 17, 2020 at 11:23 am ~new~
There was a dispute about what a law meant. The judicial branch issued a ruling on the dispute. I
don’t see how that’s a violation of separation of powers. That’s exactly what the judicial branch is
for. And there was already a rather strong precedence for this interpretation. And I’m skeptical that
this was the “desired result” for Roberts and Gorsuch.

The interpretation seems like the plain reading to me, and the opposing view the tortured reading
based on “Well, clearly they didn’t intend to say that”. It’s impossible to discriminate (barring an
expansive meaning of “discriminate”, such as disparate impact) against trans people without
basing your actions on their biological (or perceived biological) sex. I guess you could argue that it
still leaves discrimination against nonbinary people uncovered.
Which of the following would be allowed under what you think the plain reading is?
-Men can’t wear dresses.
-Men can’t have hair more than 3 inches long.
-Men can’t wear make-up
-Men can’t have “female” names
-Men can’t talk in a “girly” voice
-Women can’t wear pants.
-Women must have hair at least three inches long.
-Women must wear make-up.


June 17, 2020 at 12:01 pm ~new~
He could well be talking about the sexual orientation part rather than the trans part. I’ve just
started reading the decisions, but so far I think I agree with Brett Kavanaugh. They’re doing a
“plain reading,” sure, but there are other more obvious “plain readings,” and choosing the less
obvious one over the more obvious one is ideologically motivated.
In the majority decision the plain reading is, paraphrasing, “if you’d fire a man for being attracted
to a man but you wouldn’t fire a woman for being attracted to a man, that’s obvious sexual
discrimination.” Plain reading.
Except nobody’s bothered about people being attracted to men. It’s the homosexuality they’re
bothered by. So the obvious retort would be “I’d fire a homosexual woman and I’d fire a
homosexual man, so there’s no sexual discrimination.” Plain reading.
I would say the second plain reading is more obvious, since the crux of the issue is the
homosexuality, rather than being attracted to X sex.
That said, I believe firing someone for their sexual orientation is immoral, with a few special
carveouts for certain specialized cases like religious institutions.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 12:13 pm ~new~
Homosexual is just a term to describe a man attracted to men or a woman attracted to women.
So they would fire people based on both their sex and their attraction to a particular sex.
You can’t parse “sex” from this discrimination via the intermediary of a word.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 12:37 pm ~new~
I know that. I’m saying the other way “would fire homosexual man just as well as homosexual
woman” is also a valid reading. Picking one valid reading over the other is just an expression of
one’s own bias.

Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:45 pm ~new~
This makes sense if we take a very literal reading of the law: discrimination against trans people
necessarily involves discriminating between two people who are the same in all respects except
their sex. Curiously, however, this reading makes it impossible to rule against certain forms of
discrimination that the law probably does intend to ban, except perhaps on disparate impact
grounds (which are not part of the literal reading):
If we take ‘sex’ in anti-discrimination laws to mean biological sex, then it’s legal for a company to
allow only people presenting as men (or as women), basically allowing only cis-men and FtM
transsexuals and crossdressers.
If we take ‘sex’ to mean self-presentation (I’m not sure which interpretation the courts take
nowadays), it’s legal for a company to only allow biological males (or biological females), however
they present, allowing only cis-men and MtF transsexuals.
In order to not get this weird situation, the word ‘sex’ in the law would have to be in some sort of
quantum superposition, meaning both biological sex and presentation until a case goes to court.
Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:56 pm ~new~
Protection for sexual orientation is also justified by a very literal reading, but it leads to a similar
conundrum as transsexuality:
In the literal reading it’s legal to (say) only employ people who have a female partner (regardless
of their own sex), i.e. heterosexual men and lesbians and bisexuals with a female partner. This is
sex discrimination, but regarding the employee’s partner rather than the employee, which, I
presume, is not covered by the law.

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 1:23 pm ~new~
If we take ‘sex’ in anti-discrimination laws to mean biological sex, then it’s legal for a company to
allow only people presenting as men (or as women), basically allowing only cis-men and FtM
transsexuals and crossdressers.
The opinion takes “sex” as biological (as per textualism’s more formal name of “original public
meaning”) but this doesn’t take presentation out of bounds. It’s already covered by Price
Waterhouse, which I don’t think either dissent argues should be overturned. You could, I suppose,
mandate a unisex dress code of pants and short hair. But you’d run afoul of even biological sex
discrimination far short of “FtM” levels. I doubt a requirement for AFABs to wear binders would
pass muster.
Also, disparate impact is definitely part of the literal text of the Title VII statute; it’s not a judicial
invention. You can find the burden-shifting procedure defined here.

Hide ↑
 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:05 pm ~new~
1) Sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity are entirely distinct concepts, and under basically
any other circumstance, LGBTQ+ activists would be the first to tell you this. A trans woman is not
just a man that wears dresses and wants you to call her “ma’am”. A gay man is not just a het man
who likes to sleep with dudes. “Transphobia” and “homophobia” are distinct from “sexism”. This
makes the whole thing seem a bit disingenuous.
If you’re going to complain about “tortured readings” I don’t think you can just accept “I know you
say you’re discriminating against this trans woman based on gender identity, but clearly what you
are actually doing is discriminating against a man for wearing a dress”. Likewise anti-gay
discrimination is not just “having a sexist policy about who is allowed to sleep with men”.
2) That the 1964 CRA was not intended to cover sexual orientation and gender identity is hardly a
tortured reading. It seems plain as day that if you were to teleport back and ask Congress and the
Supremes whether it did they would think you’re nuts. If we want that law changed, it is the job of
Congress, not the Court, to pass an updated law.
It’s the job of the Supreme Court to interpret laws, sure. But this looks much more like “creating a
new law out of whole cloth because Congress can’t get their crap together”. When we wanted to
ban slavery, we passed a Constitutional Amendment, dammit. We didn’t send the Supremes on a
hunt for penumbral mass ejections. This does not seem like a positive development for
representative democracy.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 3:05 pm ~new~
Under this interpretation, wouldn’t you conclude that a (cis) man who insists on using the women’s
bathroom can’t be denied without discriminating against him on the basis of sex? And as gbdub
says, It seems implausible that this reading was the original intention.
Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 3:17 pm ~new~
It’s absolutely not the original intent of the statute and Gorsuch’s opinion doesn’t pretend that it is.
It’s a textual opinion, not an original intent one. The CRA is far from unique in having text that,
when applied literally, dictates conclusions the drafters would not have anticipated.
Hide ↑
 L (Zero) says:
June 17, 2020 at 5:56 pm ~new~
@10240: I’m just doing a simple reading like you but apparently “Title VII also prohibits
discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a
particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.”
Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 17, 2020 at 9:36 pm ~new~
@Anonymous Bosch It seems to me that Price Waterhouse covers requiring different presentation
based on sex, e.g. requiring male employees to act or dress in a masculine way, and female
employees to act or dress in a masculine way. This is similar to the way the court ruled in the
recent cases. This doesn’t seem to prohibit an employer from requiring all employees (male or
female) to present in a masculine way. Or, from requiring all employees (male or female) to wear
binders. It only prohibits requiring biological females, but not biological males, to wear binders.
Disparate impact may do the trick.
I still find it weird to interpret a law that only talks about two groups (men, women) to require the
equal treatment of four groups (cis-men, MtF, FtM, cis-women).

Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 18, 2020 at 1:42 am ~new~
@10240: I’m just doing a simple reading like you but apparently “Title VII also prohibits
discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a
particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.”
@L (Zero) This is from Wikipedia, not the law. The law doesn’t actually seem to say this explicitly.
Wikipedia’s citation is Parr v Woodmen, where (in the circuit court) it was held that Title VII
prohibits discrimination because of interracial marriage. In the lower court ruling, it is said that
“Courts that have considered the issue have gone both ways.” In the previous cases where
discrimination because of interracial marriage was held prohibited, the argument was that such
discrimination considers the race of the employee as well as their partner: a white person with a
black partner is not hired, where a black person with a black partner would be.
In Parr, from the circuit court:

Parr contends that the district court erred because Title VII is to be broadly construed, and a party
need not specifically allege that he was discriminated against because of his race, but only show that
adverse actions taken against him involved racial considerations.
[…]
Woodmen argues that if Parr’s allegations are true, had Parr been black, he still would not have
been hired. Consequently, in Woodmen’s view, Parr’s race was of no significance in the hiring
decision, and thus his claim should not be cognizable. Woodmen’s contentions are not persuasive.
Had Parr been black, he would not have been hired, but that is a lawsuit for another day. Parr
alleged that he was discriminated against because of his interracial marriage. Title VII proscribes
race-conscious discriminatory practices. It would be folly for this court to hold that a plaintiff cannot
state a claim under Title VII for discrimination based on an interracial marriage because, had the
plaintiff been a member of the spouse’s race, the plaintiff would still not have been hired.
Several factors make us resolute in our determination that Parr’s complaint stated a claim under
Title VII. First, we are obliged to give Title VII a liberal construction.
This was a broad construction of Title VII. In plain reading, Title VII doesn’t prohibit discrimination
purely based on ones’s partner.
——
It looks like courts took a two-step process:
(1) Based on an ultra-literal reading of the law, they established hat it prohibits discrimination
because of interracial marriage.
(2) Then, from this, based on a liberal, non-literal reading, they ruled that discrimination against
someone in an interracial marriage should be prohibited even if they would have been
discriminated against even if they had been a member of their spouse’s race.
This way, they got from a law that prohibits discrimination based on the employee’s race, but says
nothing about their spouse, to an interpretation where discrimination based on one’s spouse’s race
is prohibited, even if the employee’s race is not considered. IMO either one step or the other is
justified; but the combination is definitely unjustified. The courts will probably repeat the same for
sex discrimination.
Hide ↑
 Scoop says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:54 pm ~new~
and I can’t even complain about it without sounding like a dick because fundamentally I agree with
the ultimate outcome?
No. You just sound principled. Employers should be legally barred from discriminating against
people on grounds of sexual orientation, but the 1964 CRA does not do it. It was a terrible
decision, one that further undermines the court’s credibility.

June 17, 2020 at 1:34 pm ~new~
Lessons conservatives are learning this week:

1. Voting is useless.
2. On the other hand, mostly peaceful rioting might get you what you want.
Hide ↑
 Controls Freak says:

June 17, 2020 at 2:28 pm ~new~
The Supreme Court ruled this week 6-3 to ban LGT employment discrimination nationwide.
FTFY. As usual in legal discussion of LGBT concerns, the Bs get left out in the cold in favor of the
LGTs.
 L (Zero) says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:51 pm ~new~
Edited this comment to phrase the same basic inquiry in an entirely different more sensitive way.
Are there any examples of times that after “LGT” protection was already in place, an actual
example of discrimination against the “Bs” was written off by a court as acceptable?

June 17, 2020 at 4:54 pm ~new~
I guess technically, if there is an employer who is cool with their employees being exclusively
homosexual, and is okay with straight people, but wants to fire someone for having sex with both
men and women, they could argue that this case’s logic doesn’t apply to them. But I am highly
skeptical that this is a serious issue, and I don’t think that it justify characterizing this as leaving
bisexual people in out in the cold.

o whale says:
June 17, 2020 at 6:55 am ~new~
Maybe a year or two ago Scott posted (I think in a links thread) a website that had a pretty
exhaustive list of recent positive developments around the world. Perhaps someone remembers the
site and they have a more updated list?

 TracingWoodgrains says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:57 am ~new~
You might be referring to Gwern’s Improvements list.

 noyann says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:28 am ~new~
This is very recent, but at least you can search for “America”.
69. DS says:
June 16, 2020 at 3:11 pm ~new~
Hsu doesn’t acknowledge why “biology of race and sex difference” research makes people nervous?
That’s evidence he shouldn’t be in charge of reviewing discrimination complaints. But it’s not
evidence against his being a research director!
“If bad guys might abuse it, we shouldn’t study it” – I hate that argument.
I hate it when it’s an argument from the right wing against STD vaccines or gun violence research.
I hate it when it’s from the left against precision weapons or sex biology research.
It’s selfish and self-defeating and destructive, all three.

June 16, 2020 at 3:26 pm ~new~

Hsu doesn’t acknowledge why “biology of race and sex difference” research makes people nervous?
That’s evidence he shouldn’t be in charge of reviewing discrimination complaints. But it’s not
evidence against his being a research director!
Yeah, perusing the bill of particulars and taking some random skims from his blog, this is probably
my take too. There’s a few things that make me raise my eyebrow and a lot of things that make
me roll my eyes, and I think he’s definitely laying it on a little thick with the “I’m just a scientist
laying down uncontroversial science y u mad tho” (which probably explains his popularity around
these parts).
But the complaint is larded with way more dumb shit like “believes in biological differences
between populations” or confusing his description of something with advocacy of it in multiple links.
Directing research money to a guy who reached an unpopular conclusion isn’t evidence of
anything! So unless there’s something further here, like testimony that he casually drops hot racial
takes in class and asks his black students if they’re triggered (which was the case with that
Chicago econ prof), I’m gonna go ahead and register a “nah bro” on this cancellation.
EDIT: I didn’t notice until after this post that Hsu is a professor of *theoretical physics*. That, uh,
definitely makes me look more askance at his blog’s focus and his willingness to opine on
population genetics to Molymeme.

June 16, 2020 at 3:55 pm ~new~
He’s also done research in genetics.

 scienceofdoom says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:55 pm ~new~
Maybe you’d like to critique his paper, “Determination of Nonlinear Genetic Architecture
using Compressed Sensing”.
What are the main weaknesses there do you think?
How about, “Applying compressed sensing to genome-wide association studies”
Or where the predictions were then applied successfully, “Accurate Genomic Prediction Of Human
Height”
Seeing as you understand what subjects people can and can’t understand I’m fascinated to hear
your opinions.
June 16, 2020 at 8:06 pm ~new~
Please don’t direct sarcasm at fellow commenters.
Based on the limited selection of papers you cited I’m curious as to Hsu’s knowledgebase on
population evolution (a part of population genetics), especially with regard to embryonic selection
for particular polygenetic traits (which is what his company purports to do). As a non-geneticist in
the biological sciences my concern here is with loss of allele diversity, especially of alleles which
have phenotypic expression in non-selected traits, but may genetically correlate with (i.e. be
chromosomally near) alleles involved with the selected poly-genetic trait.
I’m concerned not only with this loss of allelic diversity, but with the second-order effects such a
loss of diversity would have on inbreeding coefficients. If there is less allelic diversity, then
genetically speaking marrying your 7th cousin a century from now might be equivalent to marrying
your 5th cousin today.
Has Hsu considered these questions? If so, what are his answers to them?
 Scoop says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:57 pm ~new~
Has Hsu considered these questions? If so, what are his answers to them?
You’d be better off reading the full text of his papers to see rather than posing the questions to
other commenters in a way that implies he probably hasn’t.

Hide ↑
 Murphy says:
June 18, 2020 at 3:30 am ~new~
but may genetically correlate with (i.e. be chromosomally near) alleles involved with the selected
poly-genetic trait.
From a quick scan of the height paper they talk about running the data through the Haplotype
Reference Consortium so I’d guess that it was taking that into account.
In “Determination of Nonlinear Genetic Architecture using Compressed Sensing” they explicitly talk
about this and blocks of loci.
Linkage disequilibrium is something you’d routinely need to take into account in an analysis like
that.
I strongly suspect that you’d need a very large fraction of the population selecting embryos before
it would be too much of an issue and there’s already plenty of small towns where marrying your
7th cousin is arelady equivalent to marrying your 5th cousin… actually I think I came across a
paper quantifying that in various populations a while back so we could probably quantify it while
it’s happening if it was a problem.

Hide ↑

June 16, 2020 at 8:12 pm ~new~
Seeing as you understand what subjects people can and can’t understand
This has been a banner night for folks reading things that aren’t there.
 scienceofdoom says:
June 16, 2020 at 9:58 pm ~new~
Ok, let’s say it plainly. Bosch states:

“EDIT: I didn’t notice until after this post that Hsu is a professor of *theoretical physics*. That, uh,
definitely makes me look more askance at his blog’s focus and his willingness to opine on
population genetics to Molymeme.”
What is the relevance given he has a track record of published papers in genetics?
I guessed Bosch didn’t bother to find that out. But of course I won’t assume seeing as “This has
been a banner night for folks reading things that aren’t there.”
So explain why being a professor of physics precludes people from being an expert in genetics?
Or you could say, “oh, I realize now that he has a solid record of research in this field, my earlier
comment was in error.” That’s an approach. I’m not trying to be prescriptive.

Hide ↑
June 16, 2020 at 11:54 pm ~new~
I assume that people who transition fields at a high-level (post-PhD), without taking the classes
necessary to get a degree in the new field, do not become familiar with some of the basic concepts
in the new field. Exactly which concepts they are not familiar with I cannot know.
I assume that in their new field they are the equivalent of savant syndrome- unless I see them
demonstrate their breadth of understanding.

Hide ↑
 B_Epstein says:
June 17, 2020 at 12:27 am ~new~
“unless I see them demonstrate their breadth of understanding.” – ummm and you don’t even
bother addressing the obvious reply of “does publishing a number of important papers,
participating in major technological breakthroughs in the field and running a company which you
criticize on moral rather than professional grounds count as such a demonstration”?
Also, the list of people branching out at a late stage includes many a noble name. Turing, Alvarez,
von Neumann (already mentioned elsewhere), Bill Phillips – all should be considered suspicious
until meeting your (unclear, see above) standards?

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 12:50 am ~new~
@B_Epstein
“does publishing a number of important papers, participating in major technological breakthroughs
in the field and running a company which you criticize on moral rather than professional grounds
count as such a demonstration”?
Sub-field, not field. So no, it doesn’t. All of the papers cited by scienceofdoom are in a very narrow
sub-field of population genetics. This is typical for even people with Ph.D.s in something, but at
least I have good reason to believe that a person with a degree in a field has been exposed to a
broad base of concepts considered core to that field. (see my prior comment in this thread – June
16, 2020 at 8:06 pm)

Also, the list of people branching out at a late stage includes many a noble name. Turing, Alvarez,
von Neumann (already mentioned elsewhere), Bill Phillips – all should be considered suspicious until
meeting your (unclear, see above) standards?
No, but I would consider them savant syndrome (I’m trying to avoid the term “idiot-savant”) in the
field until they demonstrate otherwise.

Hide ↑
 B_Epstein says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:16 am ~new~
Sub-field, not field. So no, it doesn’t. All of the papers cited by scienceofdoom are in a very narrow
sub-field of population genetics. This is typical for even people with Ph.D.s in something, but at least
I have good reason to believe that a person with a degree in a field has been exposed to a broad base
of concepts considered core to that field.
It seems you greatly overestimate the inter-connectedness of sub-fields. In a diverse set of sub-
fields, the dependence on “external imports” is limited. That is, one can make major contributions
without, in fact, being an expert in the entire field. In fact, in mathematics, say, there simply aren’t
any global experts. None. But there are many experts in other fields (as distant as linguistics)
contributing to some local sub-sub-field.
Therefore, the default position should be that if someone (particularly an accomplished researcher)
has a number of widely acclaimed results, the burden of proof should be on the skeptics. Until
proven otherwise, “you’re an expert in something else” shouldn’t be used as a general counter-
argument. First prove Hsu to be wrong, then explain how it is because he’s clueless about the
basics.
No, but I would consider them savant syndrome (I’m trying to avoid the term “idiot-savant”) in the
field until they demonstrate otherwise
What implications would this label have? Are they or are they not trustworthy? Just to re-
emphasize – I’m talking about the stage after they’ve made high-impact contributions. As an aside,
as Scott Aaronson put it, “if Marie Curie sent me something about biology and said I could publish
it on Shtetl-Optimized, then even though she’s not a biologist, I would.” – that is, at a certain level,
you get to be listened to even before demonstrating domain-specific achievements. No idea
whether Hsu qualifies.

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 6:17 am ~new~
I assume that people who transition fields at a high-level (post-PhD), without taking the classes
necessary to get a degree in the new field, do not become familiar with some of the basic concepts in
the new field.
You seem to assume that “taking classes” is the way people become familiar with the basic
concepts of a field. That’s true only of the dull sort of person who will never transition between
fields at the post-Ph.D. level, so I think you’re way off base here.
Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 7:56 am ~new~
What is the relevance given he has a track record of published papers in genetics?
I guessed Bosch didn’t bother to find that out. But of course I won’t assume seeing as “This has been a
banner night for folks reading things that aren’t there.”
Christopher Monckton has published papers on climate modeling. Perhaps you’re more willing to
assume this is a proxy for reliability than I am.

Fortunately, while I’m not much of an atmospheric physicist, I do dabble in molecular biology, so I
will check out the papers you cited later, when I’m not procrastinating on patent drafting.
And if I find them compelling, I’ll update my view, which is really just exactly what it says, “looking
askance.” A Bayesian prior, not a deductive rule. Economists are not logically precluded from
expertise in epidemiology; yet it still sets off a Yellow Alert in my hindbrain. So it goes.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 9:19 am ~new~
@B_Epstein
That is, one can make major contributions without, in fact, being an expert in the entire field.
No duh.
First prove Hsu to be wrong, then explain how it is because he’s clueless about the basics.
Here I have (and I do this as a person with a B.S. Biology and a bit over 10 years as a tech and
research associate; i.e. not a PhD): https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/16/open-thread-156-
25/#comment-916278
Are they or are they not trustworthy? Just to re-emphasize – I’m talking about the stage after they’ve
made high-impact contributions.
I trust a mathematical savant to perform a calculation correctly, I don’t trust them to know
whether the calculation is scientifically (or morally) appropriate to the circumstances, until they
demonstrate to me that they can make these determinations. And I certainly do not trust them to
know the appropriate “inter-connectedness of sub-fields”.

that is, at a certain level, you get to be listened to even before demonstrating domain-specific
achievements.
I intellectually understand why other people fetishize social greatness and allow it to transcend
categories. I just think this is: 1) Stupid, and 2) Saying a lot about the personality traits of the
person so fetishizing.
(In my own broad field Jennifer Doudna is considered a potential Nobel prize winner. Does she
deserve it for her discovery? More and more I’m thinking yes. Is she the best of her kind of
scientist in the field? Odds are, no. Great scientists do great science. Sometimes they also get
lucky compared to their equivalent peers. They then get allowed by certain others to “get listened
to even before demonstrating domain-specific achievements” in other fields. But their equals who
weren’t so lucky do not get this social permissiveness [at least not to the same degree].)
@John Schilling
You seem to assume that “taking classes” is the way people become familiar with the basic concepts
of a field.
I phrased that wrong. I know that a person with degrees in a field *has* (all but guaranteed) been
exposed to a diversity of background and topics broadly pertaining to the field. I don’t know this of
those who transition to a field post degree. In fact given the opportunity costs of becoming broadly
exposed to the basics of a field I’d assume they’d avoid this, unless they demonstrate otherwise.
The time has long since passed when people could be masters of all trades, or even masters of
multiple trades. Those who transition disciplines these days are heavily incentivized to do so as
specialists.
Hide ↑
 B_Epstein says:
June 17, 2020 at 10:32 am ~new~
No duh.
Hey, you’re the one harping about this distinction. My point is that a “field” doesn’t really exist, for
the sake of this discussion.

Here I have (and I do this as a person with a B.S. Biology and a bit over 10 years as a tech and
research associate; i.e. not a PhD): https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/16/open-thread-156-
25/#comment-916278
First comment raises a question. Second raises a moral issue. That’s your proof of wrongness?
I trust a mathematical idiot-savant to perform a calculation correctly, I don’t trust them to know
whether the calculation is scientifically (or morally) appropriate to the circumstances, until they
demonstrate to me that they can make these determinations. And I certainly do not trust them to
know the appropriate “inter-connectedness of sub-fields”.
But in this hypothetical, they already have, and I repeat, “made high-impact contributions”. They
have already done more than mere calculations, in your analogy.

I intellectually understand why other people fetishize social greatness and allow it to transcend
categories. I just think this is: 1) Stupid, and 2) Saying a lot about the personality traits of the person
so fetishizing.
(In my own broad field Jennifer Doudna is considered a potential Nobel prize winner. Does she
deserve it for her discovery? More and more I’m thinking yes. Is she the best of her kind of scientist in
the field? Odds are, no. Great scientists do great science. Sometimes they also get lucky compared to
their equivalent peers. They then get allowed by certain others to “get listened to even before
demonstrating domain-specific achievements” in other fields. But their equals who weren’t so lucky
do not get this social permissiveness [at least not to the same degree].)
I think you’ve got distracted by the Nobel-priziness of Curie. That’s not the point at all. Substitute
Shannon if you wish. Who, as it happens, also made contributions to genetics. And also without
formal training in genetics. As TomMustang said, “Smart people gonna smart”. I definitely would
hear Shannon out on biological topics – though of course not uncritically.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 11:14 am ~new~
My point is that a “field” doesn’t really exist, for the sake of this discussion.
Yes. It. Does. Population genetics is the field, and if you’re tinkering with a small part of that you’d
best be cognizant of your tinkering vis-a-vis the rest of the field.

First comment raises a question. Second raises a moral issue. That’s your proof of wrongness?
The fact that I do not see any comment by him on these issues that are evident to a person with a
mere B.S. in Biology who doesn’t even specialize in genetics is my tentative proof of his disciplinary
tunnel vision.
But in this hypothetical, they already have, and I repeat, “made high-impact contributions”. They
have already done more than mere calculations, in your analogy.
Yes, he identified parameters of the calculation too. That’s not much more. It’s certainly not what I
would expect an expert in population genetics with a knowledge of math to do (though obviously
many “experts” don’t think much about the implications of their research agendas toward the
broader field).
You are entitled to your attitude toward socially preeminent smart people intellectuals. I do not
agree with it, though based solely on the amplification factor from people such as you and popular
culture in general I too am likely to hear what they say more than those of equal or greater merit
who aren’t socially preeminent.

Hide ↑
June 16, 2020 at 7:35 pm ~new~

But it’s not evidence against his being a research director!
First, my understanding is that it’s quite settled that he’s a research director. You seem to mean
“reason for him to not be”. Second, sensitivity to the effects of research should be a job
qualification.
“If bad guys might abuse it, we shouldn’t study it” – I hate that argument.
You don’t think one should consider the effects of one’s actions?
 mtl1882 says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:38 pm ~new~
I’m not the person you asked, but I think this is important to address. I generally am not
persuaded by the argument that “If bad guys might abuse it, we shouldn’t study it,” but that’s
*because* I consider the effects. I don’t think this sort of suppression of ideas works as intended,
and avoiding the issue can make it even harder to deal with them, especially if you cede the field
to only bad faith actors. People can obviously disagree with this, but they shouldn’t assume this
attitude indicates thoughtlessness.

However, my assessment of consequences when dealing with things like deadly virus research
sometimes leads me to different conclusions. There are some things I’m not sure people should try
their hand at mastering–it just seems nearly guaranteed to go wrong eventually. Of course, if we
don’t research it, some other country will probably do so, and I’m suspicious of mutual agreements
to desist.
 Deiseach says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:40 am ~new~
As a Catholic and so one of the people included in the “how can these crazy science-deniers
possibly think they have any say or right to an opinion on embryonic stem-cell research” back
when SCIENCE! was demanding the right to SCIENCE! without let or hindrance (and the only
capacity of government in this whole debate was to pony up the research grants), I am smiling
grimly at this.
I don’t know what Professor Hsu’s particular opinons are, but I’m willing to guess that he comes
out of that tradition of “Science is not moral or immoral, it just is, and it’s the best way to explain
reality, so let people Do The Science and stop interjecting irrational emotional objections”.
I am firmly on the ground of “you do have to consider the consequences, science like every other
human endeavour is not done in a vacuum” but I am also enjoying the sharp tart taste of “well well
well the phone call is coming from inside the house this time, eh?” where it is science, not
religious, people calling for Correct Opinions and Moral Weight about what he clearly considers “a
plain matter of science which deals with facts, no matter where those lead, not opinions or feelings
or moral qualms or the likes”.

June 17, 2020 at 11:42 am ~new~
May I just say that I think you are well entitled to enjoy that taste.
I may not agree with “embryonic stem cell research is immoral,” but I definitely agree that if you
think it is then you have good grounds to complain that someone else is doing it without thinking
about the moral implications.

o rumham says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:25 am ~new~

I hate it when it’s an argument from the right wing against STD vaccines or gun violence research.
I believe that the actual argument was against the CDC doing gun studies because they had shown
clear bias with studies of shoddily methodology, in an area far outside of both their expertise and
the reasons that they were being funded by taxpayers. Recent failures of the CDC in their core
mission would seem to make this complaint all the more reasonable.
 Matt M says:
June 17, 2020 at 11:42 am ~new~
Agreed. I know a lot of people on the right who have made a lot of arguments as to why they don’t
like the CDC gun violence research, but “Even if they tell the truth, it’s bad because the truth might
justify gun bans” is not one I’ve heard. Not once. Ever.
The argument is nearly always that their research is either biased, faulty, unnecessary, or outside
of their proper jurisdiction, or actually vindicates gun enthusiasts (but is always framed the other
way).
70. samboy says:

June 16, 2020 at 3:09 pm ~new~
You know, this is the second time this week I am seeing the cancel culture mob (which I refuse to
call “leftist”, being left-of-center myself) trying to cancel someone for pointing out legitimate peer-
reviewed scientific research. They were able to get David Shor cancelled for linking to peer-
reviewed research on Twitter just last week: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-
liberalism-tom-cotton-new-york-times-james-bennet.html
o Aftagley says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:02 pm ~new~
I think we all already had this fight in the last fractional thread, but that one was more
understandable.
June 16, 2020 at 8:54 pm ~new~
Cancel culture aside, he seems to be just wrong, because Biden is absolutely trouncing Trump at
the moment, and approval of BLM is up somewhere between five and ten points in recent weeks
depending on the poll. Note that I say that as someone whose prior was that violence would
probably damage the movement after George Floyd’s death and who has been very surprised by
the overwhelming success of the protests/riots.

 samboy says:
June 16, 2020 at 10:48 pm ~new~
I think the people who were able to get David Shor fired would had made a much more compelling
argument if they argued what you just argued.
David Shor did not advocate for anything that Martin Luther King would not had supported under
the same circumstances. Indeed, he made the same point MLK’s daughter made in response to the
George Floyd riots: “The only way to get constructive change Is through nonviolent means”
The protesters agreed with Shor, because they calmed down pretty quickly after the initial looting
and riots (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/us/george-floyd-video-autopsy-protests.html
)
June 17, 2020 at 11:50 am ~new~
Hypothesis: Much of the looting was done by unrelated opportunists taking advantage of the
confusion.
Consider. If I were a thief, I know I’d be interested in doing my break-ins of local stores at a time
when just about every cop in a thirty mile radius was eyeball-to-eyeball with big distracting crowds
holding “FUCK THE POLICE” signs.
On the other hand, once my immediate needs for cash and luxury goods were satisfied, I’d
probably STOP looting stores, because the heat has been turned up on the protestors and nobody
likes the smell of tear gas.
If a small population of opportunistic criminals took the first days of the protests as a chance to
loot local stores, but then relaxed after having enriched themselves and not wanting to take further
risk, it would help to explain the pattern we’ve seen with respect to the looting correlated with the
protests.
June 17, 2020 at 12:36 pm ~new~
This is my model of things, too. I’m sure there’s *some* overlap, but realistically, most of the
people looting were thinking “Say, the whole police department is engaged in facing off with the
protesters downtown. So who’s watching this store full of TVs over here?”
Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 1:30 pm ~new~
I’m highly confident that the protestors are nearly completely distinct from the looters and violent
rioters.
But lots of people get angry with that, and want to defend the violent rioters, and say that wanting
anything done with the violent people means you want the peaceful protestors beaten by cops.
I still think they are separate groups, but a lot of liberal institutions are trying to shake my
confidence in that, and I can’t think of any charitable reasons.

Hide ↑
 Matt M says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:34 pm ~new~
So, in this model, the answer to the question “Why is there never any looting or arson at right-
wing protests?” would be “Because right-wing protests have simply never been large/popular to
reach a critical mass required to sufficiently distract the police to enable looting and arson to take
place without fear of consequence?”
Like, if right-wingers could turn out a large enough crowd, the same element of presumably non-
partisan looters and arsonists would then turn out and behave similarly as to how they are
behaving in these protests?

Hide ↑
 Aftagley says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:37 pm ~new~
@Matt M
That seems entirely correct to me.

Hide ↑
 Matt M says:
June 17, 2020 at 1:38 pm ~new~
I’m not sure I agree, but the logic is sound and the explanation is at least plausible, which is more
than I can say for a lot of other arguments I’ve been hearing lately…
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 2:07 pm ~new~
I don’t have numbers, but the Tea Party protests and the yearly March for Life are plenty big. For
that matter, so was the Million Man March. DC gets lots of large gatherings.
Hide ↑
 ana53294 says:
June 17, 2020 at 2:49 pm ~new~
Wouldn’t the guys with guns who don’t want to be associated with looters stop looters from using
them as cover?
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 2:55 pm ~new~
In many cases the looting took place in a different part of town from the bulk of the protests, which
probably has just as much to do with the shift in police presence.

Hide ↑
 gbdub says:
June 17, 2020 at 3:17 pm ~new~
Looters and protesters do seem to be distinct. Protesters and rioters are much harder to
distinguish, and there are a lot more who might be one today and the other tomorrow.
Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 3:32 pm ~new~
Matt M:
I suspect this is partly correct. But I also think rioting and looting are largely a co-ordination game
(in the game theory sense). You want to loot and burn, I want to loot and burn, so does Conrad
and Simon. But each of us knows that if we just go out and loot and burn things alone, the police
will surely catch us and put us in jail. So we want to wait until some social signal that tells us that
lots of people are going out to do some looting and burning. Once each of us knows that lots of
others are doing that, we’re pretty safe from the police.
Locusts use prime-number-of-years gestation periods to accomplish this goal, but looters can use
TV coverage of protests/riots/looting and even of events that often precipitate such things.
Hide ↑
June 18, 2020 at 2:45 am ~new~
@Edward Scizorhands
There are a considerable number of people using “I disapprove of the rioters and looters” as a
convenient code phrase for “and this is why I oppose the protests, even though I would look really
stupid coming out in favor of police brutality.”
This is a recurring pattern: because these protests are always accompanied by at least SOME
looters, every protest can then be dismissed using the argument “but there were looters,”
regardless of the actual beliefs of the supermajority of protestors who are not looters.
The perception arises that the attempt to shift the discussion to being primarily about the looters is
in some ways a deliberate attempt to draw attention away from the subject of police brutality- that
it is, in short, a kind of rhetorical trap.

And one way out of the trap is to say “I don’t specifically approve of the looters but I refuse to
condemn them anymore, because this has become a weird ritual I perform as part of you
delegitimizing my last several protests.
More generally, democratic institutions exist to make revolution superfluous by permitting the
general public to change institutions they don’t like. The ability of democracy to restrain police
abuses has been unreliable and shaky in recent years. As a result, you start seeing a more
revolutionary sort of protestor.
In general, when there exists a problem that hurts the masses more than the elite, if the elite
doesn’t want riots or other destruction, they have to at least throw the masses a bone here and
there. American policing has neglected to do this, and now we’re seeing the predictable results.
@Jaskologist
National protests converging on Washington D.C. tend not to lead to rioting and looting, regardless
of whether they are left-wing or right-wing. This is because they tend to be more carefully planned
events and the security is handled in a practiced, orderly manner.
Furthermore, the various local and federal police in D.C. usually don’t try to brutally crack down on
the protest march because then they literally piss off the entire nation at the same time- see for
reference what happened to Hoover’s reputation after the crushing of the Bonus Army.
Most of the recent protests were at least semi-local: those who lived in New York and wished to
protest police brutality did so in New York, and those in Seattle did so in Seattle. But there was no
mass organized movement of protestors descending on any one city in America, and indeed there
was no prior event planning of any kind for obvious reasons.
You get a lot more looting opportunists in an unregistered, unorganized, spontaneous upwelling of
protest sentiment than you do in a carefully policed, heavily organized, tightly synchronized
demonstration planned months in advance.

Hide ↑
71. JohnBuridan says:

June 16, 2020 at 3:08 pm ~new~
I recommend his podcast with Corey Washington called Manifold. (Are podcasts supposed to be
italicized?)
o Well... says:
June 16, 2020 at 8:11 pm ~new~
The names of TV shows are supposed to be put in quotes but not italics. I’m not sure how you
format the titles of individual episodes. But if I were going to guess I’d say whatever format they
use for TV is what you’re supposed to use for podcasts.

72. Lambert says:
June 16, 2020 at 2:47 pm ~new~
Did Molyneux not used to be a crank? Or was he just a Rothbardian rather than all trite one?
o Matt M says:
June 16, 2020 at 2:51 pm ~new~
He was always “weird”, even among fellow libertarians. But his primary weirdness used to be his
obsession with “peaceful parenting” and his somewhat unorthodox views on children and child
abuse, rather than anything particularly right-wing.
ETA: So if that’s the podcast we’re talking about, and if it was long enough ago, I find the answer
of “It wasn’t alt right when I went on it” completely and entirely plausible. Personally, I sympathize
with this, because I was a big fan (to the point of having donated to, met in person, and took a
photo with) Christopher Cantwell prior to his… uh… conversion… and that’s probably the #1 piece
of ammunition someone could use if they were ever sufficiently motivated to get me cancelled…
 Iago the Yerfdog says:

June 16, 2020 at 3:02 pm ~new~
You know, I don’t think I ever saw that side of him. Granted I was busy at the time being
converted to a virtue ethicist by Roderick T. Long (that part stuck) and was more interested in
mutualism a la Kevin Carson.
My impression of Molyneux (EDIT: or probably Kinsella; see my other comment) at the time was
that he was kind of a dick and espoused his political views in part as a justification of his being dick
— an impression I’m even more convinced of these days.

 Evan Þ says:
June 16, 2020 at 4:20 pm ~new~
From a quick web search, it looks like “peaceful parenting” is, basically, not spanking? Am I
missing some other ramifications of the view?

 Matt M says:
June 16, 2020 at 4:55 pm ~new~
Yes, but to the extreme. No physical force allowed on your kids at any time, for any reason, ever.
I’m pretty sure that even something like “picking them up and carrying them out of the room when
they’re throwing a fit” would be considered unacceptable. I think it’s also generally based on the
premise that even when they are very young, you need to reason with them rather than just
saying “go to your room” or whatever. But I never looked into it too much, so please don’t take my
words as the absolute facts of the matter.

 viVI_IViv says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:54 pm ~new~
I’ve watched a few videos where Molyneux plays a sort of off-label therapist where people call him
and he diagnoses the problem with their life and gives them advice. Invariably, the problem is
always that the person has been abused or neglected by their parents. And if they insist that they
haven’t Molyneux gets mad at them.
This conviced me that he’s a nutjob. But when he discusses politics he’s not particularly insane,
although he’s a weird mix of libertarianism and ethno-nationalism.


June 16, 2020 at 8:59 pm ~new~
Invariably, the problem is always that the person has been abused or neglected by their parents. And
if they insist that they haven’t Molyneux gets mad at them.
Reminds me of Drew Pinsky. Although without the “getting angry” part.
Hide ↑
o Randy M says:
June 16, 2020 at 2:52 pm ~new~
What in particular now? I listen to him time to time, but usually just the call in shows lately. I find
discussions on podcasts more interesting that the single person monologuing format.
I don’t always agree with his advice, but it is a useful perspective as a parent.
edit: Oh, I missed the connection to Hsu. There has been a right-ward shift (edit: or maybe just in
focus) since ’16, but not so much that he should be radioactive by association.
Molyneux was not a controversial figure in 2017, although he has since become one
Note that this can be true without saying anything about Molyneux.
 Lambert says:
June 16, 2020 at 3:25 pm ~new~
I was drawn in till he said along the lines of ‘bitcoin will be great. It’s deflationary. Look at
ccomputers, which are getting cheaper. Everything will be like computers once we all use bitcoin.’
 Matthias says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:21 pm ~new~
Though funny enough, deflation isn’t actually a problem.
Economically, you want a stable nominal gdp. Because nominal spending is what wages etc are
paid out of.
If productivity goes up enough to cause deflation while keeping ngdp stable, that’s even better.
The bad reputation of deflation comes from often being encountered at the same time as a
collapsing nominal GDP in the wild.
George Selgin’s book Less Than Zero (freely available online and recently released with an
introduction by Scott Sumner) lays out the case in more detail.
Though in some sort of cosmic irony, the mechanisms to stabilise nominal GDP on bitcoin or even
just a gold standard requires lots and lots of fractional reserve banking. (More details in George
Selgin’s book.)
Good luck finding a bitcoin fanatic in favour of fractional reserve banking.

June 16, 2020 at 2:52 pm ~new~
Molyneux was always a crank, and while he was a straight-up Rothbardian in the 00s, he was
definitely well into the alt-right by 2017. I don’t think appearing on a podcast is necessarily
grounds for summary cancellation but if that’s what Hsu is selling I’m not buying.
June 16, 2020 at 3:57 pm ~new~
“You allowed yourself to be interviewed by a bad person therefore you’re bad” is not a standard
anyone on Earth consistently applies to their friends, only to their enemies. Nor the even dumber
version, “You allowed yourself to be interviewed by a person who has interviewed bad people,
therefore you’re bad.”

 gleamingecho says:
June 16, 2020 at 4:13 pm ~new~
Well said. Like I’ve been saying for a while now, instead of “actions speak louder than words,” the
cancel culture’s mantra is “the words of people with whom we want to associate you speak louder
(about you) than your own words, which in turn speak louder (about you) than your own actions.”
 gleamingecho says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:43 am ~new~
@ Anonymous Bosch’s “awfully silly of me…” comment and those following:
My “well said” comment was not aimed at you but at the general sense among many participants in
the cancel culture that interacting with people with yucky ideas makes one yucky by association.
I would echo the sentiments expressed in Albatross’s “First, I was trying to summarize a line of
argument I’ve seen, not your comment in particular” comment.
Cheers.
June 17, 2020 at 7:18 am ~new~

Hide ↑
 noyann says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:32 am ~new~
June 17, 2020 at 7:18 am {tilde}new{tilde}
Does the server hiccup and include a {start time of writing this comment or something} line into
random posts now and then recently?

Hide ↑

June 17, 2020 at 8:39 am ~new~
No, it was a poster making a mistake when cut-and-pasting someone else’s comment to respond
to. We all make mistakes.
Maybe the software should disallow people from posting “~ n e w ~”, but people don’t make this
mistake often.
Hide ↑

June 16, 2020 at 4:40 pm ~new~
Awfully silly of me for thinking that explicitly saying this isn’t my logic would be enough to stop
people from trying to dunk on it.
My point is simply that it’s not credible to say that Molyneux didn’t become an alt-righty until after
2017. If you’re reading subtext behind this point based on its apperance and context, well,
congratulations, you’ve successfully illustrated why it’s a bad idea* for Hsu to be casually
commenting about racial differences on Molyneux’s podcast.
*also a narrower claim than some Manichaean idea of “badness” as intrinsic character
June 16, 2020 at 4:54 pm ~new~
@Anonymous Bosch
I don’t think appearing on a podcast is necessarily grounds for summary cancellation but…
In my opinion, you’re inviting misunderstanding with that phrasing.
Hide ↑

June 16, 2020 at 4:58 pm ~new~
In my opinion, you’re inviting misunderstanding with that phrasing.
To the extent I’m “inviting misunderstanding” by people willing to truncate mid-sentence, I think
I’ll live with it.

Hide ↑
 Spookykou says:
June 16, 2020 at 5:21 pm ~new~
I don’t think they truncated your sentence to try and misrepresent you, the ‘not necessarily’ reads
like ‘not always but sometimes this is okay’ which is in contrast to your second quote ‘I explicitly
said this is not okay’.
My reading was that in this instance you did not think that being interviewed by someone was
grounds for calling that person a bad person, but that you are open to that idea, and in this
instance you don’t buy the “I didn’t know he was bad” defense from Hsu specifically.
I think the large seabird is objecting to the idea that it is ever okay to call someone bad for being
interviewed by someone bad, which is the same misunderstanding I got from reading your post,
and apparently a few others.

Hide ↑
June 16, 2020 at 5:27 pm ~new~
Just about done entertaining Isolated Concerns About How My Comments Might Be Received By
Readers Despite Their Literal Content Being Quite Modest from readers of the Slate Star Codex
blog. If no one else has anything I think I’m gonna call it a thread.
Hide ↑
 10240 says:
June 16, 2020 at 6:45 pm ~new~
@Anonymous Bosch Just a note: while I noticed the ‘not necessarily‘ part of your comment myself,
I think the commenters who pounced and assumed that you’d implied that it’d been definitely
wrong for Hsu to appear on the interview were off the mark.
Hide ↑
 ManyCookies says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:14 pm ~new~
Fwiw I thought Bosch’s post was clear, in that he narrowly objects to the “2017 Moly wasn’t alt-
righty” claim while punting on the broader question. “Was 2017 Moly alt-righty” is a much quicker
post than “Was appearing on 2017 Moly bad form”.

Hide ↑

June 16, 2020 at 7:34 pm ~new~
To be as explicit as possible:
I don’t think it’s automatically bad (as in a bad idea) for people to appear on alt-right platforms as
long as those platforms are used to explicitly challenge those beliefs in proportion to (1) how shitty
the alt-right guy is (2) the topic covering an area of genuine disagreement.
I think this appearance was a bad idea. The 50 seconds of throat-clearing and asterisking Hsu
posted in his defense fails to qualify proportionally to how shitty Molyneux is (and was, I couldn’t
stand the guy after 2015 or so) on typical alt-right grossly-weak-man-tier hereditarianism in
general. The charitable interpretation at this point is that Hsu wasn’t aware of this. And while I
didn’t watch the full podcast, I caught way more than 50 seconds worth of jocular common ground,
which would be the primary takeaway of his listeners. “This prestigious scientist mostly agrees with
us!”
That this was a bad idea doesn’t mean I buy into some dumbass theory of whether Hsu is “a bad
person” nor am I applying some hypothetical hypocrisy that depends on me divining “good people”
from “bad people.” Even someone as odious as Molyneux is right on some issues; by all means go
on his show to have a bash at intellectual property!

I don’t think Hsu pretending that Molyneux only broke bad (in terms of having bad opinions, smart
guys) after 2018 speaks well of him, although it’s still consistent with the charitable “ignorant”
interpretation.
On balance I am hesitant (read: genuinely conflicted but biased against) to cancel him solely on
this. Most of the rest of the complaints are marginal and overstated. I’d feel as strongly as Scott
does if he was admitting partial error instead of fully doubling down. Remember, it’s about degree.
The majority of dumb points made by the Twitter thread don’t negate the good ones. (Insert
Stannis GIF here.)

Hide ↑

June 16, 2020 at 9:32 pm ~new~
“One particular person has disavowed this argument, so no criticism of the argument should be
presented”. Yes, that is quite silly.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 4:14 am ~new~
@No One In Particular
I would be quite surprised if “you allowed yourself to be interviewed by a bad person therefore
you’re bad” is a belief held by any readers of the SSC comments section. Do you disagree? If you
don’t, what exactly is the point of criticising it?

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 7:18 am ~new~
Anonymous Bosch:
First, I was trying to summarize a line of argument I’ve seen, not your comment in particular.
Second, to clarify *my* position: I think having public discussions with people with whom you have
profound disagreements is valuable, and I don’t think it should be punished, even if Molynoux is a
complete tool[1]. I think it would be okay if Hsu had public conversations with a repesentative from
the Nation of Islam or the government of Saudi Arabia or an overt white-nationalist (I’m not sure if
Molynoux qualifies or not) or with a genuine modern-day Maoist or Stalinist, or with an antinatalist.
It’s not just that I think it’s a forgivable misstep not to have done a background check on the guy
whose podcast you’re appearing on, I don’t think there’s something wicked about having
conversations with people I think are bad people with bad ideas.
This seems like some radical statement right now, and yet, mainstream politicians and media
personalities have had pleasant and amiable conversations with folks like Henry Kissinger and John
Yoo. When the “crime” that besmirches all who speak with you is having yucky ideas, it seems like
people somehow take it a lot more seriously than when the “crime” is actual crimes against
humanity. This seems nuts to me. But I don’t want to penalize people for talking to those guys,
either, I just want to be clear that you’re not tainted for having actual discussions with people with
bad ideas.
[1] I’m not too familiar with Molynoux–what little I’ve seen hasn’t impressed me. But for reasons
which should be obvious, this isn’t actually a big deal to me.

Hide ↑
 Lambert says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:36 am ~new~
+1 on being allowed to appear alongside bad people.
If the threat of cancellation means that no moderates can interview with the far right, who’s there
to advocate for a moderate viewpoint?

Hide ↑
 zero says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:03 am ~new~
If you think no one can be convinced, then all the moderates are doing is making it seem like the
extremists are actually within the Overton Window.
Of course, if you think no one can be convinced, I have no idea what your endgame is. Probably
nothing good, no matter what your intentions are.

Hide ↑
June 17, 2020 at 11:30 am ~new~
@Spookykou
I don’t think they truncated your sentence to try and misrepresent you, the ‘not necessarily’ reads
like ‘not always but sometimes this is okay’ which is in contrast to your second quote ‘I explicitly said
this is not okay’.
Yes, that’s what I intended (not attempting to misrepresent).
Hide ↑

June 16, 2020 at 8:06 pm ~new~
It’s cooties.
June 16, 2020 at 4:44 pm ~new~
I I listened to Molyneux sometime in the 2006-2008 range and at first I was really drawn in, and
after a dozen or so of his podcasts (iirc he was recording them daily in his car during a commute)
he suddenly seemed like a crank/hack to me. I can’t quite recall what it was but I want to say he
kept resting a bunch of his (really strongly held) opinions on anecdotes.

o Iago the Yerfdog says:
June 16, 2020 at 2:53 pm ~new~
EDIT: NOPE SORRY THIS WAS STEFAN KINSELLA. MY BAD.
Most of adecade ago, Molyneux was (EDIT: as far as I could tell at the time) a fairly standard
anarcho-capitalist known (by a fairly small group of people) for his passionate anti-intellectual-
property views. Around the time Trump got elected he recanted much or all of that and dedicated
himself to the culture war.

 Matt M says:
June 16, 2020 at 2:58 pm ~new~
for his passionate anti-intellectual-property views
Are you sure you aren’t confusing him with Stefan Kinsella? It’s a common mistake as they’re both
bald and named Stefan… but Kinsella is the main “anti-IP guy” to the extent of having written the
book on it, AFAIK…


June 16, 2020 at 3:04 pm ~new~
You know, I think I am. Dang.
I still think Molyneux popped by the circles I was in back then from time to time, and I think they
left the same impression on me vis being a dick, so I’m sure that didn’t help my confusion.
EDIT: Remind me: which one ran the C4SS (Center for a Stateless Society)?

June 16, 2020 at 3:11 pm ~new~
C4SS is Carson and the mutualist left-libertarians, but they hate IP just as much as the Mises
right-libertarians
Hide ↑

June 16, 2020 at 3:29 pm ~new~
@Anonymous Bosch
Man, my memory sucks.

Hide ↑
 Matt M says:
June 16, 2020 at 3:50 pm ~new~
For what it’s worth, I travel in a lot of the same circles as both of them, and do find them both to
be “kind of a dick.” (Moly has more objectionable views, but Kinsella is more nasty towards people
who disagree with his)

Hide ↑
 Martin says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:55 am ~new~
@Iago the Yerfdog

which one ran the C4SS (Center for a Stateless Society)?
Stephan Kinsella was on the advisory board of the C4SS.
Hide ↑
 Martin says:
June 17, 2020 at 7:59 am ~new~
@Anonymous Bosch
C4SS is Carson and the mutualist left-libertarians, but they hate IP just as much as the Mises right-
libertarians
Not justs mutalists. E.g. Roderick Long and Sheldon Richman are not mutualists, more like ancaps
although they don’t like to call themselves that.
Hide ↑
 LadyJane says:
June 16, 2020 at 7:27 pm ~new~
Molyneux is a laughing stock in modern libertarian circles. Maybe back in 2008 he was still
considered a libertarian activist first and foremost, but by 2017, most other libertarians had
definitely started distancing themselves from him already due to his support for Trump and his
socially conservative/ethno-nationalist views. I don’t know if he ever formally renounced
libertarianism like Cantwell did, and he might even still support anarcho-capitalist economic views
(or he might have completely changed his stance on that, I have no idea), but very few libertarians
would still consider him to be one of them. The only time I even see him mentioned in libertarian
groups anymore is when people post egg memes making fun of his bizarre and creepy obsession
with women’s fertility.
Stephan Kinsella is a fairly controversial figure within the liberty movement too, but far less so. A
lot of libertarians dislike or disagree with him, but they don’t consider him anathema or claim that
he’s not a real libertarian at all like they do with Molyneux. I honestly don’t know enough about
him or his views to have a strong opinion on them myself, beyond the fact that 1. he’s associated
with the Mises Institute (which I have a generally negative opinion of) and 2. the whole concept of
“argumentation ethics” (the bizarre and convoluted meta-ethical system he espouses) seems
absolutely nonsensical to me.


June 16, 2020 at 7:51 pm ~new~
Stephan Kinsella is a fairly controversial figure within the liberty movement too, but far less so. A lot
of libertarians dislike or disagree with him, but they don’t consider him anathema or claim that he’s
not a real libertarian at all like they do with Molyneux.
Wait, now I’m confused. Is the state of being a libertarian defined by belief in minimal
government/any government at all is incompatible with the terminal value liberty, or by who loves
ya?
Hide ↑

June 16, 2020 at 8:01 pm ~new~
It seemed a fairly straightforward confirmation of Matt M’s post above that Kinsella is
“controversial” due to being a kind of a dick, not because people believe he’s no longer libertarian
like Molyneux.
Hide ↑
June 16, 2020 at 11:36 pm ~new~
Kinsella’s take on argumentation ethics seems to be inspired by Hans Herman Hoppe, who studied
under Habermas and used that “continental philosophy” approach as a justification for both
libertarianism and things in the vein of ethnonationalism (which is quite a contrast to the
cosmopolitan analytic philosophy of Mises). I don’t know of Kinsella actually endorsing the same
things as Hoppe though.

Hide ↑
 Martin says:
June 17, 2020 at 8:15 am ~new~
@teageegeepea
Hans Herman Hoppe, who studied under Habermas and used that “continental philosophy”
approach as a justification for both libertarianism and things in the vein of ethnonationalism
Hoppe uses argumentation ethics as a justification of libertarianism, but not, AFAIK, for his “things
in the vein of ethnonationalism”, for which he has other arguments.

Hide ↑
LEAVE A REPLY
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 META
 Register
 Log in
 Entries feed
 Comments feed
 WordPress.org
 SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL
Email Address
 ADVERTISEMENTS
The COVID-19 Forecasting Project at the University of Oxford is making advanced pandemic
simulations of 150+ countries available to the public, and also offer pro-bono forecasting services to
decision-makers.
Substack is a blogging site that helps writers earn money and readers discover articles they'll like.
Giving What We Can is a charitable movement promoting giving some of your money to the
developing world or other worthy causes. If you're interested in this, consider taking their Pledge as a
formal and public declaration of intent.
Dr. Laura Baur is a psychiatrist with interests in literature review, reproductive psychiatry, and
relational psychotherapy; see her website for more. Note that due to conflict of interest she doesn't
treat people in the NYC rationalist social scene.
AISafety.com hosts a Skype reading group Wednesdays at 19:45 UTC, reading new and old articles on
different aspects of AI Safety. We start with a presentation of a summary of the article, and then
discuss in a friendly atmosphere.
Altruisto is a browser extension so that when you shop online, a portion of the money you pay goes to
effective charities (no extra cost to you). Just install an extension and when you buy something,
people in poverty will get medicines, bed nets, or financial aid.
Metaculus is a platform for generating crowd-sourced predictions about the future, especially science
and technology. If you're interested in testing yourself and contributing to their project, check out
their questions page
Support Slate Star Codex on Patreon. I have a day job and SSC gets free hosting, so don't feel
pressured to contribute. But extra cash helps pay for contest prizes, meetup expenses, and me
spending extra time blogging instead of working.
Seattle Anxiety Specialists are a therapy practice helping people overcome anxiety and related mental
health issues (eg GAD, OCD, PTSD) through evidence based interventions and self-exploration. Check
out their free anti-anxiety guide here
.
Beeminder's an evidence-based willpower augmention tool that collects quantifiable data about your
life, then helps you organize it into commitment mechanisms so you can keep resolutions. They've
also got a blog about what they're doing here
Norwegian founders with an international team on a mission to offer the equivalent of a Norwegian
social safety net globally available as a membership. Currently offering travel medical insurance for
nomads, and global health insurance for remote teams.
MealSquares is a "nutritionally complete" food that contains a balanced diet worth of nutrients in a
few tasty easily measurable units. Think Soylent, except zero preparation, made with natural
ingredients, and looks/tastes a lot like an ordinary scone.
The Charter Cities Institute is working on ways governments can set up special zones with unique
legal institutions. Learn more about how this could help tackle problems from global poverty to
climate change.
B4X is a free and open source developer tool that allows users to write apps for Android, iOS, and
more.
Jane Street is a quantitative trading firm with a focus on technology and collaborative problem
solving. We're always hiring talented programmers, traders, and researchers and have internships
and fulltime positions in New York, London, and Hong Kong. No background in finance required.
80,000 Hours researches different problems and professions to help you figure out how to do as
much good as possible. Their free career guide show you how to choose a career that's fulfilling and
maximises your contribution to solving the world's most pressing problems.
The Effective Altruism newsletter provides monthly updates on the highest-impact ways to do good
and help others.
1104 comments since

[+]
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SSC - 2020-06-16 - OPEN THREAD 156.25 + SIGNAL BOOST FOR STEVE HSU - Comments

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SSC - 2020-06-16 - OPEN THREAD 156.25 + SIGNAL BOOST FOR STEVE HSU - Comments

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

23 Jun 2020 09:38:17 UTC

Slate Star Codex

future like that.

My prediction after my cleanest housemate left:

perfectionists, either; the dishwasher washes better than they do.

June 18, 2020 at 4:05 am ~new~

sifters) will not be washed as well if left purely to the dishwasher.

knows, it makes it harder to wash later).

that I don’t understand.

clean my pots immediately.

You do have to load it, preferably not completely at random.

disabled hunter-gatherers, apparently? 😁

June 18, 2020 at 3:07 am ~new~

abuse of these boys.

June 17, 2020 at 7:59 pm ~new~

at least some number of weeks at a time.

childcare arrangements. Is that absence of evidence clear enough to constitute evidence of

population. But I don’t know if anyone has looked into this.

or scrolling on both browser and PC.

June 17, 2020 at 7:04 pm ~new~

June 17, 2020 at 8:44 pm ~new~

comments since” widget. I haven’t noted any issues on my PC.

June 17, 2020 at 9:11 pm ~new~

an e-mail field, log in and paste, then log back out.

Interesting, will give that a try, thanks!

June 17, 2020 at 9:22 pm ~new~

e.g. Razib Khan on a recent episode of his new podcast.)

June 17, 2020 at 7:25 pm ~new~

arms races could influence the bleeding edge of wokeness.

June 17, 2020 at 8:29 pm ~new~

putting enough emphasis on civil rights issues.

resigned themselves to supporting the establishment democrats, or have given up on politics

because neither party supports them. A few defected to Trump.

 Wrong Species says:

with neoliberal wonks.

June 18, 2020 at 12:27 am ~new~

on board with what it means (to them).

and wrap it using the Quote button.

o Le Maistre Chat says:

June 18, 2020 at 12:28 am ~new~

Seconding “no one disagrees with this, Atlas.”

orders to corporations, the judiciary, the permanent bureaucracy, et al.

pick them up for him?

to enter the country).

pundits have much bigger fish to fry at the moment.

9. Le Maistre Chat says:

o Wrong Species says:

June 17, 2020 at 5:45 pm ~new~

and stones. Maybe he was just a world war too early.

June 17, 2020 at 6:13 pm ~new~

1000 deaths between India and China occurs this year.

30 or so die, we likely have a continuation of the current quasi-peace.

retreat from doomsday (to tip my hand a bit).

10. Pepe says:

doesn’t know anything about the topic. Any suggestions? Thanks.

o Christophe Biocca says:

June 17, 2020 at 5:16 pm ~new~

Disclaimer: Computer Science background but by no means an expert on this topic.

pathfinding in there despite having nothing in common.

http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/ is a pretty good book in that vein but it teaches both

June 18, 2020 at 12:12 am ~new~

11. BBA says:

police powers, but NYU isn’t one of them.

June 17, 2020 at 5:04 pm ~new~