Tuf Ted retweeted
No, she does not realize anything.
No, she will not realize anything.
No, she will not change her belief system.
Because she has none.
Only high-testosterone, high-IQ heterosexual males speak and act as a result of their mental model of the system as a whole. Everyone else just says and does whatever they think will keep them safe, and maybe get them a pat on the head.
Her mental model is not "Diversity is good for France."
Her mental model is "if I say diversity is good for France, others will approve of me".
If you have enough voters who believe things simply because others believe them, democracy becomes irrelevant.
Actual opinion no longer matters, only the illusion of consensus. Because the people who are swayed by the illusion of consensus become the swing voters, and everyone who actually needs to be reasoned with becomes irrelevant.
That's what women's suffrage is really for. That's what immigration is really for. That's what government school systems are for. They are all for generating a critical mass of voters whose opinions are formed outside their heads.
That's why the entire Western political class appears to hate high-T hetero White men suddenly and all at once.
Western high-T hetero White men are the demographic that advances civilization at all, but they are also the greatest impediment to managerial rule. And guess which one the political class actually cares about.
So, no, women are not going to suddenly wake up and reverse course.
You are not going to seize power by changing women's minds.
You must change women's minds by seizing power.
Tuf Ted retweeted
10 truths that I learned as a decamillionaire (10M$+) in my 20s:
1. If you didnt get girls before money, you won’t afterwards.
“Gold diggers will be attracted to me!”
Very few young women care about money. You know what Gold diggers are called? Women older than 25. Once they turn 25 & finished riding the D carousel, they all want to settle down with a rich man.
2. You realize that expensive things are often garbage. Lamborghini? Formaldehyde-ass-smelling plastic car. Only male teenagers will be impressed by it.
5-star hotels? Toxic laundry detergent, polyester bed sheets, non-organic food. It’s a scam
3. You realize that 99% are slaves to serve you. “Working” is actually just slavery. Rich people just shuffle money around. You won’t say this publicly of course to keep your employees happy. We’re a Team! We’re building the future! I work really hard! and other motivational BS
4. Again, rich people don’t work. Capitalism is just progressing from self employed to business to investor. Investor is the end game. You literally just invest a million here, a few millions there and hope it grows 2X, 3X, 5X
At some point you launch some charity to “change the world” which will have almost no impact compared to governments which have the monopoly on violence and print trillions.
5. Rich people are still slaves in a tax farm. Yeah sure they might bribe their way here and there, have powerful connections, but if they make too many enemies eventually they are put in prison.
6. You realize no one is in control. Despite what schizo conspiratards tell you, all people at the top are absolute morons.
The people who truly control the world are a mix of 3-letter USA agencies, big tech & the media who influences public opinion (INCLUDING the opinions of people at the top)
7. The true biological purpose of life is having as many fit offspring as possible. It’s like a game of Agario, you just multiply as much as possible. Most people nowadays fail at it (0-1 kids).
Wealth helps you raise & afford these kids, but other than that it’s truly meaningless. Some homeless dude living on an island by the sea can have more or the same enjoyment as billionaires.
8. Your kids will be manipulated by mass media. If you aren’t a normie, your kids will be. Unless you keep your kids in a closed community (ie amish), chances are extremely high they will be normies & adopt mass culture ideas (ie Bill Gates daughter dating a black guy). This is an unfortunate reality.
9. The reason you want to be rich is that you are insecure. Maybe you’re short, maybe balding, maybe you’re not white, maybe have acne, maybe you’re ugly - you are insecure. You believe you are superior & want money to confirm the fact that you are to cope with your insecurities. Prove the world you’re the man! But nobody will actually give a shit once you do become rich. Because you’ll be in your 30s or 40s. Most 18yo women will find you creepy & you have to resort to ever more depraved ways to trick them into sleeping with you/impregnate them. (a la Epstein)
10. Youth is the most important thing. And biohacking is a scam. You are going to age, no matter what.
Every rich person tells you they’d spend millions/billions to be young again.
Tuf Ted retweeted
First they came for the software engineers and I said nothing for I was not a software engineer.
Then they came for the mathematicians and I said nothing for I was not a mathematician.
Then they came for the doctors and I said "make sure you get all the doctors"
Tuf Ted retweeted
It's ridiculous that we're still talking about stereotype threat. The original Steele/Aronson article was published in 1995. The problems with replicating it were surfacing within a few years. It should have been forgotten 20 years ago. But it's the old story. If a single study produces academically popular results, it survives failure to replicate indefinitely. If a study produces academically unpopular results, no amount of replication is adequate.
"One study found a near-zero effect of stereotype threat on girls’ performance in maths, science, and spatial tasks. When the authors statistically controlled for publication bias, the near-zero effect fell to zero."
stevestewartwilliams.com/p/s…
Tuf Ted retweeted
People will readily admit that the reason she didn't depict a minority group in this ad is because they would have freaked out. Then in the same breath tell you that you shouldn't freak out.
But you just admitted that black people freaking out prevented them from being used as a punching bag?
Why exactly wouldn't we use the same tactic which you just admitted works?
Tuf Ted retweeted
High IQ combined with high social desirability bias is a disastrous union. If you are very intelligent, you have a responsibility. You are a loaded gun, not to be left lying around for anyone to pick up
Many critics have weighed in on Effective Altruism, but I believe the fundamental concern is this: you can rationally derive a better *means* (given a starting point), but you can't rationally derive an *ends* without axioms being present in the formulation. The concern, therefore, is that EA could be a trojan horse for axioms, gaining legitimacy by demonstrating improvements only to the downstream processes of those smuggled-in axioms.
Any rational effort has a root outside the domain of rationality. That root is critically important; even a process executed perfectly is still bad if its root is bad. And you need it: without axioms, one can only justify being a nihilist, with no preference for any action over another.
The full process can be conceptualized like: start with axioms -> logically deduce actions to take -> end results are produced.
You can choose to work backwards, starting with an intended result and deriving axioms (axioms and desired end results are really two different views of the same thing). And you can logically compare ends and axioms in various ways. But there's no getting around it: we have axioms, and they cannot be objectively justified.
Tuf Ted retweeted
This is a great example of how EA fails.
Even working within the universalist utilitarian premise: the author calculates that there are 75 hours (270,000 seconds) of insect death per second of human life. But human brains are 1 million to 20 million times larger than insect brains. How does suffering potential/intensity scale with brain size? We have no idea! It could be linear, log, exponential, or something else entirely. It could be based on specific neural structures, it could be about brain mass relative to body mass. We just have absolutely no clue.
I imagine the response would be “fine I’ll just vibe a probability distribution over all of these” but that’s just as unknown as the questions themselves, and when numbers are this big, small parameter tweaks will cause huge swings in the final result.
Furthermore, what does “matter” mean in this context? We don’t really have a way to meaningfully address insect suffering.
Of course there are also far more foundational critiques: morality as a social technology rather than a cosmic fact, the greater potential of humans to spread life throughout the universe, etc etc.
Tldr this is both fake and useless. Fake in that, despite some superficial math, it’s really just laundered vibes, and useless in that we couldn’t do anything about it anyway.
I think the psychology that drives this is a glee in being counterintuitive. If his own calculation had instead showed that humans housed more utils, I think he would have felt disappointed and bored, and probably not published it. A reflexive preference for the unintuitive is no more rigorous than intuition, and based on an evolutionary argument is probably wrong *more* often, or at least less fit.
This “glee in being counterintuitive” is a ubiquitous pathology among EAs. It makes them feel smart, feel like high decouplers. They allocate esteem based on how many weird beliefs/practices someone will espouse, since that indicates rational elevation above our “base” cognitive nature.
Tuf Ted retweeted
"Would you support the mom if she said the N word the whole time she klld her kids?"
"Probably not"
My current opinions of frontier AI models
GPT 6.0 Astra--Same as below but also do use for 3D/spacial tasks.
GPT 5.6 Sol--Functional slop producer. Don't use for Greenfield development, anything where figuring out what is the problem is part of the problem (it overengineers). Do use for reviews (but don't let it bikeshed), tasks with well defined constraints, prototyping or anything where the slop stays contained or doesn't matter.
Fable/Opus--Best for initial designing/planning; combine with gpt reviewer for best results. Best at actually writing code (might produce too many comments). Opus 5 is the worst at writing text. Don't use for anything "unsafe."
Grok 4.6 (med/high)--Fast model I use often for asking questions and anything that doesn't need the most possible intelligence. I'd rather have Grok 4.6 do a greenfield design than gpt 5.6 or 6.0.
Unfortunately Anthropic has the best models, but they're worse in every other way (harness restrictions, "safety" restrictions, untrustworthy company). Grok is like the opposite of Anthropic; OpenAI in between.
Tuf Ted retweeted
“You have to understand that I only celebrated her death when I thought she was more successful than she was”
This quoted post is unavailable.
In a certain way, it's been a good thing that scientific standards have been so lax for vaccine research because they've left all the evidence of such right in the research papers for anyone to see.
Imagine if the standards had been higher--they'd have made sure the papers were bulletproof while manipulating the data.
Imagine a world where carefully weighing the evidence is a disadvantage, because:
1) Doing so puts one at risk of falling victim to sophistry conducted by someone who is more capable.
2) The average person is much less capable than the top people.
And there are always two separate questions to ask: (A) What is true? and (B) What benefits my tribe?
(A) is resolved by being inoculated with one's beliefs at a young age, with the fact that those beliefs bore one successfully serving as the "proof."
(B) is resolved socially, via social conformity, vibes, shaming, encouragement, etc.
The charge of "you're a bad person" is like saying "you're working for the wrong tribe." And this is an arena that even the average, uncapable, person can contend in, because the average person can influence the social vibes (and of course in this age they can also be manufactured from the top down).
"Why am I suddenly defending my decency?" Bret Weinstein explores the rise of fanaticism and how it feels from the inside.
Covid vaxxers vs anti-vaxxers; traditionalists vs libertarians; and climate science deniers vs enthusiasts.
@BretWeinstein explains, "the experience for somebody who tries to do the analytical work on any one of these topics that have been evaporatively cooled — the experience is, 'Wait a minute, why am I suddenly defending my decency? Why is my morality in question?'
And this is the hallmark. You can watch it happen. There's some question. Is the evidence consistent with the official narrative, or is it more consistent with a conspiracy? That's an analytical question. But if you are on the wrong side of it, the suspicion about you is that you are morally defective. There's something wrong with you that you would see it that way.
And the wrong thing is not about analytical disagreement. It's not about the weighting of evidence. It is about your character."
Tuf Ted retweeted
This is the kind of person destroying Western civilization.
Everyone bad is actually a vulnerable baby, and having standards is actually mean.
And, actually, the mean standards people need to be gotten rid of.
Everything falling apart follows from this.
I can’t stop thinking about Jason Arday and about how shamed, humiliated and embarrassed he must have felt.
Three days ago the Guardian was still carefully dismantling his claim that he had been non-verbal as a child like it even matters in the grand scheme of things. What stayed with me was that even the people contradicting him described a boy who sang songs and always wanted to entertain. That detail feels important. People who fabricate, embellish or tell little white lies are rarely monsters. More often they are vulnerable, insecure, and quietly convinced they are not enough. That makes me very sad. He was vulnerable and very cornered.
Tuf Ted retweeted
We see a racial stratification in stats ranging from crime to academic and professional success. This stratification is seen group averages which seem to hold across the world. There are two competing explanations.
1) that these groups due to tens of thousands of years being geographically isolated developed slightly different traits. One of those traits is cognitive ability. The differences between the groups is relatively low, much smaller than the differences within the groups, but it can be seen when measuring the groups avg successes across fields like SAT testing, income, criminality, etc…
2) The racial stratification we see in these measurements is due to the unrelenting evil of the white race who has constructed every aspect of the world to specifically keep black and brown people oppressed. They created a system of omnipresent racism that seeped into all institutions in the world. This includes our laws, our education system, doctors, where we build grocery stores, our roads, everything to secretly hold down the other races (not Asians though explanation 404)
Amazingly the left has managed to mainstream the second argument calling a race inherently evil while denouncing the first as racist.
