« Half Sigma’s iOS device buying guide for Christmas | Main | The psychology of torrenting »

December 02, 2012

Comments

The obvious implication is how can a democracy survive with this kind of thinking? Has it always been like this, or has it just increased in the last few decades? My guess is that group association (at the expense of individualistic thought) has increased since WW2 because people have been increasingly self-segregating. If people simply vote according to who they think they "belong" to, then that group's/president's policies and their effects don't really matter much do they?

I guess this explains why black democrats have been winning elections in the inner cities even as the opportunities and quality of life in those places has been decaying.

Cognitive dissonance is painful. It makes sense people would adopt beliefs that minimize cognitive dissonance.

It goes something like this:

1) Being a part of group X will help me get Y (which I want)

2) Group X believe A, B, and C

3) If I don't believe A, B, and C I can state I believe it, but now I'm constantly trying to keep track of my own lies and feel guilty all the time

4) Over time I learn to actually believe A, B, and C regardless of the evidence because doing so makes me happier then constantly lying

5) If I'm really good at it I may even be able to practice "double think" where I can believe one thing one minute and another thing another minute while not remembering what I believed just a moment ago. Thus I can believe that HBD is not true and yet live in a gated community of all white people. In the particular moments I'm talking with friends about how great diversity is and deciding where to live I can actually believe these two opposing things without cognitive dissonance.

We might have all these competing groups, but at least America is still the best country on earth!

Two quoted comments...

"I guess this explains why black democrats have been winning elections in the inner cities even as the opportunities and quality of life in those places has been decaying."

"5) If I'm really good at it I may even be able to practice "double think" where I can believe one thing one minute and another thing another minute while not remembering what I believed just a moment ago. Thus I can believe that HBD is not true and yet live in a gated community of all white people. In the particular moments I'm talking with friends about how great diversity is and deciding where to live I can actually believe these two opposing things without cognitive dissonance."
--------
Yep, it's only the blacks and those damn SWPL-liberals who practice this hypocritical double-think! Where's the introspection? Easiest person to fool is yourself...

Close. People vote for candidates they like, and then assume their positions. That's backed by political science research, as I noted in a blog post in '08: http://thehackensack.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-from-irrational-electorate.html

And Howard Stern illustrated this in practice in '08 as well, when he had one of his minions interview Obama supporters, while switching the candidates' policy positions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIOePg4K0vI

You should see Ron Unz's latest article at infoproc.com.

It shows Hitler was right.

The last two tables show that Jews accomplish MUCH more than would be predicted by their IQ alone and that the most underrepresented group in the Ivy League are white gentiles NOT Asians.

When they say "rational," they mean it in the economic sense, i.e. a rational actor does whatever maximizes his success/utility. So I doubt they mean to claim that this behavior is rational in the sense of likely to discover "objective truth."

"It shows Hitler was right."

lol

For me, I've gone from an apolitical anarchist in my teens, to lock-step knee-jerk Fox News brand of conservatism ages 18 to 21, to libertarian ages 21 to 22, to progressive liberal ages 22 to 25, to I have no idea 25 onward. But I'm a reclusive schizoid who doesn't socialize much, so I don't have much of a team to identify strongly with. I'm sure if I were more social and had more close and meaningful relationships, I'd be more aligned with certain ideologies; or at least proclaim to be in order to be agreeable.

HS, you're all wet. Most people have no political "beliefs" at all; as Steve Sailer says, in the U.S. you either develop resentment at a young age or you don't. Once you do, you're a Democrat for life.

Upwards to 70% of Americans don't even know what the Constitution is. Only 50% can correctly answer basic questions about finance (like calculating interest). So the elections become watered-down popularity contests fueled by the mostly liberal media. People piece together vague notions about political parties and platforms, but most don't take it much further than that. Those who actually make it to the voting booth probably stop thinking about it soon thereafter. So if there is any kind of party adherence after identifying with a group, it's a vague process at best and largely subliminal.

I dunno if that works for me. For most my life I was sure I was a Democrat, and didn't like Republicans because they were rich and country club etc. I like old-time Democrats like Pat Moynihan, Tip O'Neill, and Ernest Hollings.

But when I tried to be an activist, I was turned off by the sorts I met. They were cold, suspicious, into that break-eggs-to-make-an omelet ethos. I had no desire to break things or destroy our institutions. Not even when I was young did I want that.

What I think happened was that by the time I tried to go active, a very radical, non-sentimental type had taking over the reins of the party, at least in my state.

"The last two tables show that Jews accomplish MUCH more than would be predicted by their IQ alone and that the most underrepresented group in the Ivy League are white gentiles NOT Asians".

Why would White gentiles even want to be associated with liberal schools that are infested with leftist Jews, and now a lot of Asians and NAMs? Most of these people aren't looking for any achievement, but ways to game the multicultural system to their benefit via indoctrination.

"The last two tables show that Jews accomplish MUCH more than would be predicted by their IQ alone and that the most underrepresented group in the Ivy League are white gentiles NOT Asians".

Why would White gentiles even want to be associated with liberal schools that are infested with leftist Jews, and now a lot of Asians and NAMs? Most of these people aren't looking for any achievement, but ways to game the multicultural system to their benefit via indoctrination.

Mark Twain said people get their religion and politics 2nd hand and without much thought.

There is an example that I read about that supports your thesis. If a guy joins a firehouse and all the guys in the firehouse are conservative, the new guy will start to adopt their views.

I notice you often trumpet the fact when you're proven right. You have a loyal readership that knows when you're right without you having to bring it up. It makes you seem insecure - and a little crass.

"I notice you often trumpet the fact when you're proven right. You have a loyal readership that knows when you're right without you having to bring it up. It makes you seem insecure - and a little crass."

I see no harm in it. And I don't think it makes him seem insecure unless one is fond of assigning insidious "double-meanings" to things in the style of pop-psychology (a field dominated by male feminists, it must be noted).

I mean, a guy who drives a huge truck surely *must* have a small penis, right? Not by my judgment. Far more likely, he's just a crass n' crude prole who shares the aesthetic sensibilities of his class, as highlighted in a preference for big, loud and unsubtle things.

To assume that a great deal of people are "compensating" for some deficiency -- real or imagined -- through their actions is to award a great deal more subtlety and sophistication to the general public than actually exists. Most people aren't subtle at all, and their true inclinations can be readily identified from their everyday habits, with no "double meaning" interpretation required.

I'd much rather associate with people who possess a bit of an egotistical streak (whatever that's supposed to mean) but are correct, than those who make a great show of humility but are consistently wrong. Yes, some liberal arts and humanities professors are quite "nice" people, I've no doubt. Does that make me more inclined to listen to their input on racial issues? Obviously not.

Pride doesn't really get in the way, UNLESS it prevents one from arriving at the proper conclusions.

At some point it should dawn on you that nearly every great and famous personality in world history had a bit of an "ego". It's very difficult to find a man who left his mark on the world that didn't have such qualities.

That doesn't mean that every man with a big ego will leave a mark, but we can all try (and most of us do, don't we)?

HS writes "smart," but he means "credentialed." Reason is not slave to the tribal and trivial passions in smart people.

This is no surprise to me. Just look at the Jewish and Asian vote.

"I notice you often trumpet the fact when you're proven right. You have a loyal readership that knows when you're right without you having to bring it up. It makes you seem insecure - and a little crass."

I've noticed it as well. The itoldyouso's and icalleditfirst's may give off the appearance of insecurity but I find them endearing and an overall net-plus, a HS hallmark even.

Karl

Some people can think for themselves. I have a friend who is a lesbian, social worker for the state of California who voted for Romney and complained to me every time she gets a raise by saying "How can California Afford this." She also told me that she keeps her mouth shut when she is in the office.

OT: This subway incident is pretty disturbing: http://abcnews.go.com/US/brave-man-killed-subway-train-protect/story?id=17873672#.UL52kmfzgwQ

It would seem that this Korean man tried to protect his fellow bystanders from a mentally deranged black guy on the platform, with a rather predictable result.

'every great and famous personality in world history had a bit of an "ego" '

Yes. But we all learned in middle school that the worst thing you can be is conceited.

[HS: Which turned out to be bad advice in many circumstances, because modern society doesn't reward humility.]

Off-topic really.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/fashion/weddings/carey-bollinger-benjamin-danielson-weddings.html?_r=0

Much wealthier, much smarter, much better educated, possibly better looking woman from an elite family marries a balding, semi-prole widower ?

Half, I agree...
it is like the "traditionalists" on the blogs like thinking housewife, oz conservative, larry auster etc.

These bloggers ask for a return to a traditional society, when all the evidence is that traditional societies have massively dysgenic birth patterns.

While the non traditional ultra liberal societies like Iceland and Denmark appear to have healthy birth rates that are actually eugenic, ie the genetically high IQ secular women are having more babies than the genetically low IQ secular women

All over the world,
Those secular high IQ women who feel that there is a tradeoff between prestige career and children will typically have few or no children.

Generally, traditional societies like japan italy and spain make it hard for super high IQ mothers to have prestige careers and as a result the super high IQ women skip having kids. In Japan Italy and Spain they have to choose between the presige career and the kids

Denmark and iceland make it very easy for super high IQ mothers to have prestige careers. as a result, fertility of super high IQ women is very healthy in Denmark and in fact fertility may actually be eugenic there.

That is why there is irreconcoilable conflict between those of us that are HBD aware and those that are Larry Auster style traditionalists.

Traditionalism calls for a society similar to what you see in Japan, but in traditionalist societies like this the high IQ women go on birth strikes. In an aggressively non traditionalist society like Iceland or Denmark, the secular high iq women are willing to have plenty of children.

"Much wealthier, much smarter, much better educated, possibly better looking woman from an elite family marries a balding, semi-prole widower ?"

She is not young and I don't think she is tops in looks. I think she made a smart choice.

And there is no evidence that she is smarter than him. Plenty of high school teachers are smart.

Him being bald ain't no thing. Bruce Willis and Michael Jordan made it on the people sexiest men alive list as bald men.

"you either develop resentment at a young age or you don't. Once you do, you're a Democrat for life."

Yeah, it's not that simple. In New Hampshire, where I grew up, poor resentful people become Republicans. Most people seem to be driven by envy and resentment when you get right down to it. People who resent the fact that Ivy Leaguers and SWPLs seem to lead such happy easy lives tend to vote Republican or Libertarian. Obama's quote about bitter people clinging to guns and religion pretty accurately describes the left side of the bell curve at my all white rural high school.

People who resented the jocks in high school, or resent business majors for making more money than they do, vote Democrat. People with high intelligence but low success on the sexual market probably go Democrat or Libertarian based on whom they percieve as their sexual competition. Blacks resent white people in general, so Democrat makes more sense for them. If you want to know someone's political affiliation, just figure out whom they dislike.

@Wencil --

Do we know if Japan, Italy and Spain are dysgenic at present? I honestly have no idea. They have low birthrates, but who is it that is having fewer kids? Do you have any data? You may very well be correct, but it could also be the case that a place like Japan so darn expensive that the less bright might not be able to earn enough to establish a household.

Links would be great.

"Much wealthier, much smarter, much better educated, possibly better looking woman from an elite family marries a balding, semi-prole widower ?" - fresh off the boat brown


They're equally looks matched. Couples match up on looks regardless of social class. Look at Mark Zuckerberg and his wife.

"Which turned out to be bad advice in many circumstances, because modern society doesn't reward humility." - Half Sigma

Nietzsche asserts that morality and behavior is derived from social hierarchy specifically from the master/slave relationship. Concepts like fairness and humility would be categorized by him as slave morality. A way to reshape society in favor of the loser. However human nature cannot be circumvented so easily. What people say and how they act are two entirely different matters.

That explains a lot of orthodox Christian theology, which, instead of being rational constructs -- theories of the Trinity anyone? -- are team identifiers in church politics. Factional competition for office, etc.. One could also see this kind of behavior in the Old Soviet Union and contemporary China -- and, indeed, in the various fields of academia. Catchwords are key.

OT

The movement to eliminate gened requirements is starting to build. From UVa"

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2012/12/a-more-liberal-education

I would propose, not only for our University but for all institutions of higher learning, a complete lack of general education requirements — with the one caveat that the writing requirement remains intact —

snip

Degree programs typically require between 30 and 45 credit hours, while students need a total of 120 to graduate. Rather than dictating that an additional 46 credits be accounted for by way of requirements, why not allow students to control their own academic discovery? Broadness for its own sake will accomplish little — if students are not engaged in what they are learning, their education was for naught. Additionally, with the credits and time we would gain from eliminating the degree requirements, we could more easily pursue a second major or specialize more fully in our chosen area of study. We could learn comprehensively, but with our own interests in mind.


http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2763

Restricting general education courses to a select few will be extremely unpopular with some faculty. There are large numbers of teaching jobs at stake: many departments that now teach popular general education courses could lose half or more of their students. If that were to occur, financial sanity dictates that faculty jobs in those programs be cut. (Of course, new jobs will be created at the same time for specialists in the essential subjects.)

"People know what team they belong to (Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, etc.) and then they adopt the views of their team."

I would assume that by "people" you mean "people less self-aware than myself and my readers," except for the qualification you make for "smart" people in the following sentence.

Being able to speak only for myself, I'll say that the generalization is inaccurate.

HS,

You should write about the article in the Atlantic on the work environment at the silicon valley companies http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/perks-and-recreation/309175/

The most interesting quote is:

Offices overall, she says, have been optimized for the extroverted. Open floor plans, constant stimulation, an emphasis on spontaneous collaboration—all of these things prevent the kind of quiet, thoughtful mindfulness that introverts need in order to do their best work.

Is there a place in the future for introverts.

"Offices overall, she says, have been optimized for the extroverted. Open floor plans, constant stimulation, an emphasis on spontaneous collaboration—all of these things prevent the kind of quiet, thoughtful mindfulness that introverts need in order to do their best work.

Is there a place in the future for introverts."

This is a strange state of affairs. Even some bankers at Goldman Sachs were upset by the open plan of their new building, which made them share common workbenches (among these were higher up bankers, who were used to private offices. Perhaps more of a status issue, but nevertheless...).

If persons as extroverted as the average banker have balked at such an environment, I can only imagine how the average STEM graduate with some degree of aspbergers would find this forced extroversion. Seems like another counterproductive move by an upper management with no idea of what is going on "in the trenches".

Offices overall, she says, have been optimized for the extroverted. Open floor plans, constant stimulation, an emphasis on spontaneous collaboration—all of these things prevent the kind of quiet, thoughtful mindfulness that introverts need in order to do their best work.

Is there a place in the future for introverts.
Posted by: superdestroyer
--------------------
yep, i hate constantly running into co-workers and having to constantly say hi and make chit chatter. if you just say hi without the chi chatter, awkward tension develops, and you start hating the person. it's all very mentally taxing for an introvert to be thrown in such a sociable environment. i suppose telecommuting would appeal to many introverts, but not every job can accommodate that.

@ Conquistador

"They're equally looks matched. Couples match up on looks regardless of social class. Look at Mark Zuckerberg and his wife".

Most of the time, but they are exceptions. Just look at Prince William and Kate. A balding guy with thinning hair gets to marry a fairly attractive woman because of his status, and his not looks.

I say it's a poor match.

"Of course, new jobs will be created at the same time for specialists in the essential subjects"

Which means Academia will forever remain leftist.

There is a dearth of White candidates in the STEM subjects, and Asians who are rote learners do not make good enough independent thinkers to teach a subject successfully.

What else can these younglings do beside sit at their desks? Blue collar work and anything associated with Prole dirty hands aren't convincing enough. But there always work as a barista, if that's what they want.

The problem with team politics is you're expected to yell "safe" whenever a team member slides into second. It gets boring.

Didn't George Orwell write something about this? "I'm the sort of person who drives a Buick, smokes Camels, listens to jazz, drinks chardonnay, and votes for the Blind Monkey Party." Or thereabouts.

The comments to this entry are closed.