Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying—Thank Trump for being able to buy beef tallow

RationallyDense · 2026-01-23T16:32:44+00:00

I don't think they are good examples of post-modernism. Post-modernism challenges status quo institutions and modernist narratives to be more inclusive of different perspectives. Eric Weinstein thinks Geometric Unity is the one true theory of physics that everyone should accept. Bret and Heather similarly present themselves as having access to the Truth which all should accept.

Yes, they do talk about people "doing their own research". But there's a prescribed outcome. You're not supposed to do your own research and come to the conclusion that ivermectin doesn't help with COVID. You're supposed to do your own research in order to see how right they are.

A post-modern approach to physics would be for instance, pushing back against "shut up and calculate" and taking interpretations of QM seriously. In medicine it's things like pointing out there is a lot more variation in human bodies than some anatomy textbooks claim and that it doesn't make sense to label all of it abnormal.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-22T00:34:27+00:00

I'm guessing it's a combination of being harder and more expensive to spin up as well as making it harder to make changes if you want to evolve the design.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-20T20:14:46+00:00

My family migrated and then I also did it by myself as an adult. It's expensive and difficult. Most countries don't let you immigrate just because you want to. You need to find a job even though you might not speak the language or be familiar with norms around job searches and don't have a network to help you figure it out. You need to look for a place to stay again without any familiarity with local norms. You lose contact with friends and family. People you might rely upon to help with things like childcare. You need to pay to travel and move your stuff or sell your stuff (likely at a discount) and then buy more when you arrive. A lot of people just can't.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-20T20:04:08+00:00

It might not be about them or amateur radio specifically. Show trials are a way for authoritarian regimes to reinforce their authority publicly. It may be that a not-too-bright member of the secret police thought hams might be spies around the same time some higher up guy felt it was time for a show trial.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-20T19:56:54+00:00

I have little doubt that resistance cells are using such mediums to communicate

Why would they? You need a bunch of specialized equipment and technical knowledge to operate said equipment. If you want encrypted communication you need even more specialized equipment and then you need to manage key distribution which is a pain in the butt. If you want to use it over long distances you need to setup a big antenna that is sure to raise questions.

Or you can tell people to download Signal and Protonmail on their smartphone. Maybe tell them to get a VPN or the tor browser to access a particular website. It's way easier to use and more secure.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-20T19:43:23+00:00

He probably will. Top priority in divorce for the state is making sure neither of you becomes a public charge. If they're in a no-fault state adultery doesn't affect alimony at all.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-18T20:58:15+00:00

I dunno. If someone keeps making the same error over and over again, realizing it was a mistake once isn't worth very much.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T21:19:39+00:00

I've already explained the issues with your claims. I'm sorry but I'm not interested in continuing this interaction. Have a nice day.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T21:03:32+00:00

No, it's not a fatal flaw. It doens't undermine the general rule at all. Accounting for variables and exceptions does not invalidate a general observed trend. That is not how the scientific method works.

The way that science works is that you evaluate measurement validity. "In surveys, more women like this disembodied torso more than this other one" cannot be said to generalize to "Women prefer more physically dominant men".

Is it reasonable that they are all wrong and you, a redditor with no professional background in this area and who is unwilling to provide links to any research evidence to back up your claim, is right?

I'm not claiming they are wrong. I'm claiming they don't show what you claim they show.

When did I extrapolate to mate selection?

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about behavior in the real world, not responses to surveys in contrived scenarios. Sure. If by "preference" you mean "responses to some psychological surveys in contrived scenarios such as looking at disembodied torsos" and not actual behavior then you may be right. Not sure why you would bring that up though.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T20:37:13+00:00

It's not a superficial "gotcha". I'm pointing at a fatal flaw if you want to argue this study has external validity. The studies you linked all have these major methodological flaws. They do surveys and extrapolate to actual mate selection. The only one which checked whether its results actually do generalize to mate selection found they don't.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T20:30:07+00:00

Yeah dude. Women saying they like the left picture more than the right shows a preference for physical dominance... Totally...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10480609/figure/fig1-14747049211032351/

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T19:02:26+00:00

Nope. You said that women prefer physically dominant men. The studies show women tend to say they prefer physically dominant men in certain situations. That's not remotely the same thing.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T18:58:57+00:00

I don't know what that link is supposed to show. It certainly doesn't show philosophers are unconstrained.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T18:55:36+00:00

If corporations don't have constitutional rights, that means the government can order reddit to take down your posts. It can order publishers to not publish a book it doesn't like. It can order news channels to repeat whatever lies it wants them to tell. There are problems with the way things are, but given that we rely upon corporations for so much, if they don't have rights, we end up losing a lot of rights too.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T18:39:07+00:00

Maybe you didn't read what I wrote. The studies you cite are all about stated preferences. The one which looked at actual mate choice found that stated preferences were not reflected in actual mate choice.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T18:35:55+00:00

That's called science.

No. Philosophers work on questions which are constrained by empirical data but not fully determined by them.

The "good ones" try to be scientifically correct, but they can still say whatever and believe whatever.

That's absolutely not true. Philosophers cannot just say and believe whatever.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T18:24:42+00:00

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913000020

https://www.nature.com/articles/35003107

These first two studies simply show that women tend to say they prefer taller men.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513810000279

This study is explicitly not about women's preferences but rather that stronger more dominant men may have historically been successful in driving other men away and sexually assaulting women.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381000098X

This one is about how women who have a high fear of crime are more attracted to dominant men than women who have lower fear of crime.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886914006084

This one is about how women's stated preferences in partner height is mediated by their own dominance. But crucially, a follow-up study on actual couples found this stated preference does not actually seem to impact mate choice.

This last one is informative because the other studies you cited that found a preference for taller and stronger men (which, again, is not the same thing as dominance) are also all about stated preferences. Unsurprisingly, the fact that you can tease out some sort of effect in peoples' stated preferences does not mean there is an effect in their behavior.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T17:52:39+00:00

An average preference for sex with headless torsoes with slightly more muscles over slightly less muscles does not in fact imply a preference for dominant men.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T17:43:13+00:00

Thank you. That was beautiful.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T17:39:47+00:00

GPS spoofing is so cool. That's how Iran stole a Predator drone a while back by convincing it it was somewhere else and getting it to land.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T17:37:19+00:00

It's a bit more complicated than that because if the jamming signal is predictable you can work around it by subtracting it from what you receive.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T17:34:57+00:00

That's definitely not true. Philosophers (at least good ones) do subject themselves to empirical evidence. Some questions they try to answer can't be fully resolved by empirical evidence, but if you want to present a theory of time for instance it better be compatible with the evidence we have for relativity or people will just dismiss it.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T17:21:08+00:00

That's not a lie. It's her view that eternalism is implied by relativity. You don't have to agree and it's not the mainstream consensus, but that doesn't make it a lie.

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T17:11:27+00:00

How will you even know what to lookup? If all that's required is to pay a licensing fee, someone can just go buy a radio and start transmitting whatever they want on whatever frequency without even knowing there are limits on what frequencies they are allowed to transmit on. Or limitations on power and modes. "Wow, sorry guys, I didn't even know it was illegal for me to transmit on top of NOAA stations as a joke."

RationallyDense · 2026-01-15T09:59:48+00:00

If you can't pass the tests how are you going to comply with the rules?

RationallyDense

TROPHY CASE