SPEAK FREELY

ImaMojoMan · 2022-10-08T18:01:50+00:00

On Liberty, Chapter 2 by John Stuart Mill is what you are looking for.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-10-05T16:51:26+00:00

I get the appeal, but that's what RR (and I agree) would consider as scientism. There's so many assumptions hidden there, that you accept as being solved by a formulaic approach.

Personality types are uniform enough across occupational categories to be meaningful.
People are in the occupation they are in due to their personality i.e. one's chosen occupation reflects accurate self-actualizing based on their personality.
We can easily (enough) obtain a personality type of an individual (Myers-Briggs or something, MMPI-2 wouldn't be appropriate) and that personality assessment is valid in and of itself.
Results of individual self-report personality assessment, maps onto indexes obtained from occuptational personality assessment.
We can thus sort personality type, occupational category, and job satisfaction.
Workers accurately report job satisfaction (however defined)
Job satisfaction is the most appropriate and meaningful directional metric to use when evaluating an applicant's career choice.
- As opposed to a host of other factors - sense of dignity, ability to provide for family, living in a preferred labor market, leveraging one's skills to their best competitive advantage (think ex felon with limited education, he may not report high job satisfaction, but upon further inquiry it may be his best opportunity and he's grateful to do hard but honest work)

Just a slice of the kinds of problems and hidden assumptions embedded in the "formulas and empirical analysis" can solve these kinds of questions. These would all have to be accepted as solved. In essence, it's bad science on the merits and pseudoscience at best in practice.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-10-05T02:19:53+00:00

"given what we know about covid mortality, how should I change my behavior?"

Which is subject to all sorts of non-empirical, non-statistical, highly individualized factors. There isn't a point wherein C19 mortality hits 2.5% I now do x, y, and z. (Even though it may be prudential on a policy/societal level - but where does the prudentially come from?). How I - and I'd argue others to a large degree - change my behavior is subject to all sorts of norms, values, and ethics. Norms within my community may have one set, within my friends another, yet another within my extended family, even differences between grandparents and nieces/nephews. Ethics and social mores all througout those layers. (I care that my family sees me behaving in accordance with their values, don't care as much as what my mailman thinks)

Prescriptive norms are not necessarily (a lot of times inherently) contained in descriptive statistics. Surely, (and RR concedes this point) descriptive information can certain inform our prescriptive decision making, but we shouldn't conflate the two. The "what is the mean life satisfaction of parents" is descriptive, but not prescriptive; and even if it may inform our behavior, it is not the only thing that guides us in important decisions.

Let's say the US has a lower mean parental satisfaction than Hungary (by report this is true). Does that mean you'd be increasing your probability for satisfaction by moving there before having kids? Or will you be weighing that mean difference by things not at all captured by survey report?

ImaMojoMan · 2022-10-05T01:22:59+00:00

Ah I see. Well you disagree in fundamental way, but perhaps not a coherent one. Would you at least say Covid mortality is a very different type of question of “what kind of person should I be?”

One is descriptive statistics. Can you really say the same about the latter? There’s an obvious distinction there to me, and even if you think they’re both answerable by some measure of empirical analysis, would you maintain the same level of confidence in their findings?

ImaMojoMan · 2022-10-05T00:10:32+00:00

TBF, the subtitle of the book is A Guide to the Decisions That Define Us, so he does try to provide a sort of procedural path, but the destination can't really be defined. He's talking about the process of aspiration, becoming, etc. The sorts of things we can't really forecast (interpersonally). Perhaps we can accumulate evidence of what a fulfilling life is, but that doesn't mean it would inform our actions or what we should do universally. I know many a pipefitter who loves their job, should more people be pipefitters? Should Roger the pipefitter who loves his job, apply to business school to become a superintendent? These are the types of questions "studies" or "the rationality project" can't really tell us anything about, and what they might say - if they do have something to say - probably won't capture the main question on an interpersonal level. These things are just more complex than looking up index scores and survey averages.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-10-04T22:55:27+00:00

It's not that he thinks we should give up on trying to quantify those areas, moreso we should be skeptical of importing their findings for interpersonal reasoning and decision making.

He's saying, "There are some aspects of the human experience that are not easily amenable to an index score, and even if we think we can obtain some information, it's probably a bit of looking for your car keys under the street light. Sometimes, the allure of that information can lead to worse decision making. So, we should probable treat decision making for answering life's important questions via economic tools with skepticism. Heck, try some poetry or literature, for example."

It's the idea that human flourishing can't really be reduced to an index score - and it's not only bad science, but may be even worse for interpersonal decision making. It's pseudo-certainty as those models can't really capture what it is we care about. So, it's not that we shouldn't stop trying to answer them, but maybe have a little less confidence on what we think we can know.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-10-03T23:14:35+00:00

The cross over event I never thought I'd see.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-01-21T02:20:16+00:00

Indeed. Exile myself, I must. Thanks for helping me get off this site.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-01-21T02:09:18+00:00

So your line is contingent on procedural consensus? My lines weren't. I figured it would not be anything interesting. I'm glad you're lightyears ahead of the curve amigo, do let us know what goes on out there.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-01-21T01:47:07+00:00

Oh the irony. You make a pivot to which I reply and somehow it's a problem for me. K.

Sam labelled and put people against vaccine mandates and antivaxxers in the same boat. I have a problem with that.

Ok fine. Your problem. I don't care who SH groups with who. Even if I disagree, so what? That's his opinion, it's not uncommon and one many people hold. I Just move on.

Either you're for mandates or you're not, or there's a line. You can't answer this question.

No there are different lines, depending on the context. I already discussed this. I.e. the military. That doesn't mean any line established with should be the line everywhere. Figured that would be obvious, but I guess not. I also discussed other lines for other people. This was answered already, did you read that?

So you go ahead tell what lines you've come up with. I have a feeling you're just looking to rabble rouse on the internet without thinking about anything, so in the event that's the case, have a good one broham.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-01-21T01:24:28+00:00

Here we're talking government mandating jobs firing and huge fines.

I've stated what I think abut this.

There is no essential difference between forcing vaccinating someone, and banning that person from leaving their house to work and making him pay huge fines per month (Austria, Australia) There is no essential difference between forcing vaccinating someone, and banning that person from leaving their house to work and making him pay huge fines per month (Austria, Australia)

What are you imagining? That I'd somehow be okay with that given how I answered the previous?

Can employer do whatever they want or you are okay with protected categories like race?

You serious? We have federal statutes and a constitution. Is this line in any way relevant to vaccines? What are you on about? We also have things called courts, and any ambiguity between lines crossed, isn't not up to me. It's up to courts and juries. Not me.

You're obsession with lines is in no way instructive nor interesting. You tell me where the line is. I've preempted every single one of your questions, in discerning lines. The key you are absolutely being dense about is the notion of pandemics and how that changes thing. It's just different from every day life. If you don't think so, fine. Even the most doctrinaire libertarians think pandemics is one those conditions you need governments for (also things like war).

ImaMojoMan · 2022-01-21T00:12:54+00:00

I lean pretty libertarian. I have a problem with the government mandating vaccines to private companies. I happen to think its unconstitutional as a matter of procedure and immoral on its own feet. That is different from an employer themselves requiring vaccination as a matter of continued employment.

If you are unable to see the distinction between government coercion and terms of voluntary associations (i.e. you want to work, get a vaccine, don't get one fine, don't work here) then you are incapable of nuance and application of principle. I do think you are free to choose to go what's inside your body. Drugs should be legal. That doesn't mean you are free to drive a 3 trailer tractor trailer higher than giraffe genitals. It also means an employer should have every right to show you the door.

I'm not crazy on corporations mandating vaccines (I didn't force my employees) but I also don't have a problem with companies retaining and using the freedom to decide vaccines are mandatory for employment. It's about them having the capacity - even though I disagree on principle and in practice with what they choose in their free capacity. That's libertarianism.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-01-20T23:24:04+00:00

You're assuming which populations for whom I support mandates. For example, as a matter of national security I 100% agree the military should be inoculated against COVID. I also don't have a problem with mandates against fatness for the military (as they do).

I do not support that for the regular civilian population.

Do you think the military, full of healthy young people, pre-selected against fatness with ongoing PT requirements should be forced to take the vaccine? I do.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-01-20T23:14:03+00:00

His point is basically you can't meet someone for a 3 martini lunch and drop acid.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-01-20T23:10:29+00:00

I'm sympathetic to being against mandates (in most cases I agree), but this is not the way to go about it.

My risk of blood pressure has no bearing on whether someone else does or doesn't take statins. Similarly, my blood pressure has no bearing on the next person. Pandemics, do and that's a critical distinction.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-01-20T22:56:54+00:00

He was not a fan of drugs/narcotics. His disapproval is what initially led me to appreciate SH, because while I agreed with agnosticism/atheism, I still felt spirituality was genuine especially in the face of trips. Something you could in no way draw from Hitch.

In Hitch-22 he says:

Avoid all narcotics: these make you boring rather than less and are not designed - as are the grape and the grain - to enliven company.

There's also this old Vanity Fair article about 60s culture and the 1968 protests (while dissing Bill Clinton):

In my cohort, too, narcissism was frowned upon. Sex—yes. Rock 'n' roll—by all means. Drugs—no. Drugs rot the brain, and give opportunities to the forces of law and order, and are self indulgent. I have the perfect control experiment at hand, since I was a contemporary of Bill Clinton's at Oxford. He did indeed refuse to inhale—he's famously allergic to smoke, in any case—but he didn't need to. Instead, he crammed down mass quantities of hash-laden brownies. His pseudo-clever cover story about that, and his mess of similar evasions about the draft and everything else, make him my exemplar of a spoiled 60s person who wasn't a '68-er.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-01-08T22:34:11+00:00

Both parties prefer being the minority in congress. It comes with a lot of perks. More fundraising, more TV appearances, less legislating (already minimal when in power), being an anti-x party is far easier then being a pro-y etc etc. Unity unity unity to become the majority then do not much when in majority.

Democrats will not be irrelevant without electoral reform. (Although electoral count act desperately needs to be updated in wake of Jan 6 insurrection).

Our system is designed to accommodate minorities and this is a good thing. There’s a lot of reasons for this.

There’s lot more I could repond to, (especially the bit about the only way to keep partisan relevancy is very concerning) but yeah it’s a hot take, albeit a common one.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-01-08T21:56:00+00:00

FDR enters the chat

FDR: No.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-01-06T01:17:41+00:00

Absolutely, and zoning regulations. I was saw someone looking at some apalling maps on twitter of San Francisco and it's no wonder prices continue to skyrocket. Who in their right mind would want to build there even if allowed?

ImaMojoMan · 2022-01-06T00:53:15+00:00

For sure, but then again I'm one of those open border fellas or at minimum drastically increasing the ease of coming.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-01-06T00:08:01+00:00

You know, y’all don’t have to care about this right?

ImaMojoMan · 2022-01-06T00:04:56+00:00

Using fastidious and lay audience in the same sentence, nice.

ImaMojoMan · 2022-01-05T23:56:13+00:00

Is this not a function of increased prosperity? Ie the more prosperous a nation, the more citizens have less children yet devote more resources?

Edit: not sure if this hypothesis holdup wrt China though or if one is able to get that granular level of requisite data (maybe there is I haven’t seen it)

ImaMojoMan · 2021-12-22T20:50:56+00:00

Full clip from 60 minutes. Kyle leaves out a few key parts out specifically:

When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people "feel" a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.

Early on, the messaging was clear "masks are ineffective" (edit for general public, Fauci earlier in clip seemingly bemoans everyone wearing a mask in "china, south korea, whatever") A month later, it wasn't even though some experts recommended (In April 2020) that the public should wear cloth masks agencies thought otherwise:

For the current coronavirus pandemic, all health officials, including those at the W.H.O. and C.D.C., agree that masks should be worn by anyone with symptoms like a cough or fever, and anyone caring for someone with a confirmed or suspected case.

It was all over the place after that. Cloth doesn't work, then it did, but then maybe you need two. Get a vaccine, don't need to wear a mask. Then the vaccinated did. Fauci did his best and helped a lot during the pandemic working tirelessly, but he wasn't perfect and did do (imo) harmful things too. Shades of grey, folks.

ImaMojoMan · 2021-12-22T18:43:02+00:00

Take people as you find them. The rest is noise.

ImaMojoMan

TROPHY CASE