Astral Codex Ten

Slate

14 min read

Slate

Article

Slate is a recurring publication in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 5 times across 5 issues between April 19, 2021 and May 01, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as “Jamelle Bouie (of Slate)”; “Jamelle Bouie (of Slate) agreed”; “here’s Slate in 1996”. It most often appears alongside America, Chinese, Germany.

Metadata

  • Category: Publications
  • Mention count: 5
  • Issue count: 5
  • First seen: April 19, 2021
  • Last seen: May 01, 2024

Appears In

Source Context

Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.

Mantic Monday: Grading My Trump Predictions
April 19, 2021 · Original source
As far as I know, the first post I wrote about Trump was this one, where I argued against the prevailing narrative that Trump was practicing "the politics of white insecurity" or had an unusually white base of support (for a Republican). I wrote that Trump seemed to be doing pretty well (for a Republican) among blacks and Hispanics, and concluded that:
Inline links: this one
In SSC Endorses Clinton, Johnson, Or Stein I wrote about my reasons for opposing Trump. There's a lot in here and I'll try to extract relevant-prediction-shaped things - but be sure to read the post to see how honest you think I'm being in my extractions.
Inline links: SSC Endorses Clinton, Johnson, Or Stein
I think this basically happened. See eg Trump: A Setback For Trumpism. A.
Inline links: Trump: A Setback For Trumpism
Contra Smith On Jewish Selective Immigration
June 14, 2021 · Original source
This is possible. I confess to doing this when listing the Solvang Conference attendees above. But this is why we have objective data. The income, net worth, and education numbers all come from self-report, which shouldn't be vulnerable to this problem. Or you can look at Nobel prizes won by Israel vs. other countries, using Israeli residence as a non-one-drop-rule-biased proxy for Judaism. Or at the Russian numbers, which were presumably based on the Russian census. Really no source of data other than hand-counting Jewish high-achievers is vulnerable to this problem, and we have lots of other sources of data.
Inline links: Nobel prizes won by Israel vs. other countries
Jewish "success" became noticeable mainly after 1800 (perhaps not coincidentally, when Jews started migrating to big cities in Europe). Among the famous scientists and writers and mathematicians and thinkers of pre-1800 Europe, there are notably few Jews. Who is to say that Jewish achievement is not a temporary blip? In America, Jewish achievement seems to fit the pattern of overachievement among recent high-skilled immigrant groups, Indians and Filipinos being other examples. Already, many have talked of a reversion to the mean in Jewish achievement; here's Slate in 1996, and here's Ron Unz more recently.
Inline links: here's Slate in 1996, Ron Unz more recently
21
November 08, 2021 · Original source
This wasn’t the first time Próspera had insinuated itself into life in Crawfish Rock. In Honduras, patronatos are hyperlocal councils empowered to speak on behalf of their communities. In June 2019, Próspera arranged for villagers to elect a new patronato. Monterroso handpicked a slate of candidates, who ran uncontested.
Auroville was originally planned for 50,000 people, but has about 2,500 official citizens, and about another 10,000 squatters. It seems like an, ahem, highly selected population. From a great Slate article on the town:
Inline links: a great Slate article
Contra Kavanagh On Fideism
February 14, 2023 · Original source
A picture my instructor took of me at one of the ruins. Nobody was under any obligation to handhold me out of my Atlantis beliefs. But the #1 Google rank for “site about how Atlantis isn’t real” is a scarce resource. Article space on skeptic blogs (podcasts were still years into the dystopian future at this point) was a scarce resource. And when people frittered these scarce resources away on a thousand identical pieces saying “lol you’re stupid and racist if you believe this, haven’t you heard that conspiracies are always wrong?” - and never on any explanation of the GIANT UNDERWATER PYRAMIDS - yes, I feel like I was wronged. Eventually I lifted myself up by my own bootstraps. I studied some of the relevant history myself (less impressive than it sounds, Wikipedia was just coming into existence around this time). I learned enough about geology to understand on a gut level how natural processes can sometimes produce rocks that are really really artificial-looking - yes, even as artificial-looking as the ones in the picture above. More important, I learned something like rationality. I learned how to make arguments like the one I use in The Pyramid And The Garden. I realized that, for all their skill at finding anomalies, the Atlantis books couldn’t agree on a coherent narrative of their own. Some placed Atlantis in the Atlantic, others in the Pacific, others in Antarctica; some used it to explain artifacts from long after others said that it fell. For a while if I squinted I could sort of kind of smush them into a single story, but that story had even more anomalies than normal historians’. Eventually I gave up and joined the mainstream. I’m not angry at Graham Hancock. I see no evidence he has ever been anything but a weird, well-meaning guy who likes pyramids a little too much. But I feel a burning anger against anti-conspiracy bloggers, anti-conspiracy podcasters, and everyone else who wrote “lol imagine how stupid you would have to be to believe in Atlantis” style articles. Either these people didn’t understand the arguments for and against Atlantis, or they did. If they didn’t, they were frauds, claiming expertise in a subject they knew nothing about. If they did, then at any moment they could have saved me from a five year wild-goose-chase - but chose not to, because it was more fun to insult me. II. Kavanagh makes fun of me for writing 25,000 words on ivermectin. I agree this might not have been the best use of my time, and I would accept this criticism from anyone except Kavanagh - who’s devoted his whole career to thinking about ivermectin and ideas closely aligned to it. There’s a Hindu legend (maybe apocryphal?) about an atheist philosopher who spends literally every second of every day denouncing God. When he dies, God welcomes him into the highest heaven, praising him as a great yogi - for he never let his consciousness stray from awareness of God even for one moment. If by some inexplicable theological anomaly Bret Weinstein turns out to be God, Chris Kavanagh is definitely going to the highest heaven. So Kavanagh’s complaint can’t be that I’m thinking about this question at all. He sort of hints at a complaint where it took me too long to figure out that ivermectin didn’t work - shouldn’t I have been able to do it without the long review? But I clearly said on my first post on the subject that I had long since decided it to my own satisfaction, and was just trying to clear up some of my remaining questions. What is his complaint? At the risk of putting words in his mouth, two parts of his comment stand out to me as having important arguments: I interpret this as - to even try to “evaluate the evidence” at all is a mistake, because it suggests there might be evidence on both sides. Instead, you should admit that some people are idiots who believe things there’s no evidence for, and move on. But the problem with “if studies had supported ivermectin as an effective treatment, it would have been adopted”, is that about thirty different studies did support it, and it was adopted in several countries, mostly in Latin America. The first few meta-analyses of ivermectin found that it worked! I’m not defending ivermectin here. I think there was a reasonable explanation of this: a combination of fraud, poor methodology, publication bias, and maybe Strongyloides infections. But until someone tells you the reasonable explanation, there’s no reasonable explanation! It’s like the giant underwater pyramids. If I go diving and see the giant underwater pyramids, and you just say “LOL, you are stupid, don’t you know conspiracy theories aren’t real?”, you’re not going to convince me! I wanted to give the reasonable explanation, in terms that people could understand. Before doing any research, I had some intuitive guesses about what the reasonable explanation would look like - something something methodological problems something something small studies. But this, itself, isn’t a reasonable explanation. It’s an IOU for a reasonable explanation. I agree that many people are unreasonable and don’t respond to reasonable explanations. I think sometimes this is genetic or something and can’t be helped, but other times it comes after a hundred different experiences where you want reasonable explanations and don’t get them and also people are jerks to you and you learn that the establishment can’t be trusted. Mahabharata: “Even after ten thousand explanations, the fool is no wiser, but the wise man requires only two thousand five hundred.” If I had had to suffer through a few more skeptics calling me racist because I wanted to know why there were giant underwater pyramids, I probably would have believed in Atlantis even harder, out of spite, and never talked myself out of it. And then when ivermectin came along, I would have thought “Scientists? Experts? They’re the guys who are so dumb they can’t even figure out Atlantis existed when there are giant underwater pyramids right in front of their eyes. Screw them, I’m listening to Bret Weinstein.” I side with the Christians. There may be people so far gone into the outer darkness that they can’t be saved, but you are forbidden from ever believing with certainty that any specific individual is in this category. Act as if everyone is one good deed away from falling to their knees and acknowledging the light of Jesus. Moving on: @RachelBCam Imagine Scott’s blog with some more generous degrees of freedom exercised in his analysis, suddenly you have a more positive result & the impression the issue is a genuine controversy. Indeed, this is what people like Alexandros did in response.","username":"C_Kavanagh","name":"Chris Kavanagh","profile_image_url":"","date":"Tue Feb 14 15:50:05 +0000 2023","photos":[],"quoted_tweet":{},"reply_count":0,"retweet_count":0,"like_count":0,"impression_count":0,"expanded_url":{},"video_url":null,"belowTheFold":true}" data-component-name="Twitter2ToDOM"> This is the part I have the most trouble interpreting charitably. I can’t stop reading it as “doing good science is a near occasion of sin for doing bad science”. It sounds kind of like fideism, the belief (more common in atheists’ imaginations than real religion) that somebody who reasons their way to belief in God is a sinner, because a real saint would have believed through blind faith, without having to reason. The best I can do is to think of this as a PR argument: it looks bad to be treating these kinds of questions as live issues. I generally don’t like PR arguments, but while we’re having them: doesn’t it kind of look bad for one side to be promoting fideism? The ivermectinist slogan is “do your own research”. Kavanagh’s apparent slogan is “don’t do research” - even if you get it right, having tried it at all makes you impure. If there’s some argument I know nothing about - pro- vs. anti- skub, perhaps - and all I’ve heard is that the pro-skub people say that you should look at evidence and decide rationally based on your best judgment, and the anti-skub people say you should never look at evidence and have to trust them - I’m already 90-something percent sure pro-skub are the good guys. My model of the PR here - of the overall milieu and psychological factors that turn people into conspiracists - is that they spot some giant underwater pyramids, compelling-seeming facts that appear to point toward conspiracy. These facts have alternative explanations, but these alternatives are less compelling and harder to explain. Realistically some people are going to get caught up in the conspiracy’s superior first-level compellingness and you can’t help them. But other people are on the fence and can be talked down. This is the job of the pro-mainstream-anti-conspiracy people. Instead of doing their job, these people: ignore them
Inline links: The Pyramid And The Garden, so far gone into the outer darkness that they can’t be saved, pro- vs. anti- skub
I don’t think I’m ignoring this. Some might even say I obsess over it. See eg Confirmation Bias As A Misfire Of Normal Bayesian Reasoning, Motivated Reasoning As Mis-Applied Reinforcement Learning, and Trapped Priors As A Basic Problem Of Rationality, which are summaries of long years of thinking about these issues. I’ve looked into this pretty hard and my conclusion is that conspiracy ecosystems fall prey to the exact same biases that all of us have, including experts and correct people. But experts and correct people have slightly less of them, have better self-correction mechanisms, and manage to converge on truth, whereas conspiracy theorists have slightly more of them and shoot off into falsehood. I think of this as very subtle: 0.99^infinity goes to zero; 1.01^infinity goes to infinity. We all struggle with the same tendencies. The trick is in understanding and controlling them.
Inline links: Confirmation Bias As A Misfire Of Normal Bayesian Reasoning, Motivated Reasoning As Mis-Applied Reinforcement Learning, Trapped Priors As A Basic Problem Of Rationality
I discussed this in this other post on ivermectin, where I describe how a false pro-ivermectin claim provoked an equally false anti-ivermectin response provoked an equally false pro-ivermectin response and so on, both sides living entirely in their biases and imagination for several cycles. “Conspiracy ecosystems” don’t have some exotic reasoning style we can’t possibly understand. They have normal reasoning, and are just slightly worse at applying CONSTANT VIGILANCE than everyone else.
Inline links: this other post on ivermectin, CONSTANT VIGILANCE
Book Review: The Origins Of Woke
May 01, 2024 · Original source
Sex discrimination got tacked on half as a joke, half as a poison pill by its enemies to make the bill unpalatable (fact check: true - but there’s a deeper story, see this Slate article for more details). Ideas about “affirmative action” and “disparate impact” weren’t tacked on at all; the bill’s proponents denied that it could be used to justify anything of the sort, and even agreed to include language in the bill saying it was against that. Still, after the bill was passed, a series of executive orders, judicial decisions, and bureaucratic power grabs put all those things in place.
Inline links: true - but there’s a deeper story, see this Slate article for more details
Hanania’s strongest point here, more suggested at than asserted, is that maybe civil rights law prevented Hispanics from assimilating into “white” the same way Italians and Irish did before them. Hanania claims that Mexican-American activists originally demanded to be classified as white, then turned 180 degrees after affirmative action proponents promised them better jobs for being non-white. This seems like one of the bigger what-ifs of American racial history, although people say that maybe Hispanics are assimilating somewhat anyway - the much-remarked upon rise in Hispanic white supremacists seems like a weird yet promising sign here.
Inline links: maybe Hispanics are assimilating somewhat anyway, rise in Hispanic white supremacists