Smart, funny people create good times

Good times attract unfunny morons

Unfunny morons create bad times

Bad times attract smart, funny people

But that’s just the thing! Nietzche’s fundamental innovation is to view all of these things: morality, politics, economics, indeed any kind of social or philosophical question through an incredibly narrowly psychological lens. It’s his obsessive persistence in this, and his excessive sensitivity to the deep irrationality in human nature (I hesitate to go with many people in saying “brilliance”, because what’s “brilliance”?), which makes him such a powerful critic of Western culture. For Nietzsche, the entire history of the world is nothing more than the history of individual sick people working out their issues, and generally doing badly.

But Siskind doesn’t have any of that, because he can only think in terms of a shallow combination of overcoming bias and his own unexamined prejudices. Siskind’s problem is that he doesn’t even view the psychological psychologically.

I’m not massively invested one way or the other in your refusal to reply because I violated rules I didn’t know existed that you didn’t explain and which don’t make any sense to me

I guess I can edit the original comment to ALSO put…explanatory text?…in a NSFW box

Well I’m not really critiquing his writing style. I’m using a reasonably complementary analysis of his writing style to sternly criticise his thought. That means I fundamentally disagree with your own paragraph in praise of his thought, whereas I actually disagree with you that his writing is poor - I think he’s an intelligent and effective writer.

Yeah, this is just as much or more a narrativisation of the inevitable conceptual trend as it is an attempt to explain what actually happened one event after another. If I were writing a book it would go next to much longer passages about racism and race science in American and world history and about race science in California Ideology land and the rationalist movement itself. This story would appear with a “but LessWrong would always have turned out this way”.

It’s notable, I think, that you can tell the same sort of story about Spencer back in the 19th century: as long as you have the backbone of naive biologism, everything will come out right for your Imperial project.

You have to remember that this guy was 12 at the time

Too late! You already mean “moronarchy”

That’s basically what I mean. A fun thing to do in rehab, for example, is to try and figure out who’s still withdrawing and who is just like that

This is fun, after several paragraphs poo-pooing the risk of psychosis (and, frankly, fair enough, I literally have no domain knowledge here), we get:

Aggressive Behavior: This is just going to be the same as psychosis. Adderall isn’t going to magically turn gentle old grandmothers into killing machines. If you’re already a kind of violent guy, and you take a lot of Adderall, maybe it’ll push you over the edge.

Dude, have you ever met a user of [any stimulant]?

Even had I not been primed by the post, that unassuming banner pic would have set off the hairs up and down my arm

Well I can’t speak to your experience with your brother, but I spoke of “philosophers” plural, and contrasted that with - quote - “a software course [our friend here] took one time”. Perhaps your brother isn’t great with mind and language, but that doesn’t mean that even he is so incompetent that he can’t do better than our target here. For all that philosophers plural, or this one philosopher, have hit stumbling blocks along the way, they have made an attempt to more than simply stipulate a wildly counter-intuitive and pragmatically tendentious meaning for this complicated word “belief” (indeed: “doxa”).

I don’t know where you get the idea that “we” have “no actual understanding” of language and mind, however, because at least philosophers (as well as their interdisciplinary friends in some of the sciences) have quite a lot of understanding of language and mind, and especially language. Since the innovations of Gottlob Frege, for example, the interpretation of semantics according to a logic of truth has been extremely helpful in clarifying how sentences bear relations to not just external but reality in general. Linguists have done extensive work on the pragmatics of language, which fills out this picture to make sense not just of propositional but questioning and commanding sentences.

These are just examples, there is obviously also a lot more.

Alright I know you’re temp banned but let’s just leave this to remind you that - whatever your opinion of philosophers - in a territorial pissing match between philosophers and…a software course you took one time…the philosophers, who between them have a very different and would you believe it somewhat richer account of doxa (look at that, it’s even in Greek), probably have kind of an edge here.