The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Incredulous Election Outcome
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

We won’t ever know what the actual votes were, only what those who count the votes declare the outcome to be. That’s what a good cross section of 40% of Americans think, anyway:

How far and for how long can trust in every major institution and process in the country fall before the country itself does? What is the hypothetical mechanism that arrests and then reverses the decline? Rhetorical, it seems. Or maybe free college for everyone–all the way through the post-graduate level–will do the trick!

 
• Category: Culture/Society • Tags: Election 2020, Polling, Trust 
Hide 75 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Beautiful and scary to watch the government lose legitimacy so rapidly. Unfortunately I’m afraid it won’t lead to peaceful breakup but more naked power struggles and violence.

    • Replies: @Realist
    @Jtgw


    Beautiful and scary to watch the government lose legitimacy so rapidly.
     
    For those that have been paying attention...it hasn't been rapid...but decades in the making.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  2. I support universal free college on the condition that we do it by turning all the professors and administrators into slaves who don’t get paid and can’t refuse to work.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @Not my economy

    Turn the admins into slaves. The professors have earned the right to be serfs.

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    , @The Alarmist
    @Not my economy


    I support universal free college on the condition that we do it by turning all the professors and administrators into slaves who don’t get paid and can’t refuse to work.
     
    Pol Pot’s Agrarian Socialist Society was a better plan for dealing with useless academics and their students.
  3. I think the problem is not the institutions; it’s the people, who intentionally place themselves in filter bubbles and pretend the entire country already agrees with them, easy as it spares them the need to actually change other peoples’ minds. I’m sure there are many people here who are certain that the majority of the country supports Trump. To those I ask, why do you believe that? “My beliefs are just obviously true and everyone who’s thought about it must agree?” Well guess what, even if that were true, the large majority of the country hasn’t thought about it. They can’t even name the three branches of government.

    • Agree: ADL Pyramid of Hate
    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @Targaleto


    They can’t even name the three branches of government.
     
    Yeah, but almost half of them can find America on a map.

    , @Kratoklastes
    @Targaleto


    the people, who intentionally place themselves in filter bubbles
     
    Disagree; they are unwittingly placed in filter bubbles. They don't understand the ramifications of having a 'tailored' information network, when the tailor's objective is to maximise eyeballs on advertisements.

    Two people who differ only in political opinion, are likely to get non-intersecting political content in 'feeds' from the data-curation platforms that come pre-installed on their phones. When it comes to a matter of controversy, there is a very good chance that they never get to see any data that represents the 'other side' (except perhaps in caricature).

    They don't know that, and are incapable of working it out by brute force, so there is no incentive for them to install an alternative aggregator (assuming they were able to identify a neutral aggregator, which they aren't).

    Face it: the vast mass of humanity do not have the cognitive machinery to work out that they're only getting half the story - especially for stories that they consider important (or that they are told they ought to consider important).

    Furthermore, they cannot evaluate data that is represented; models that are used; the coherence of rhetorical content; or the plausibility of the conclusions.

    To get a vague idea just how far up the cognitive ladder this goes: look at r/science on Reddit - basically journalist-level drivel where priming a story by "Study shows" or "Scientists say" is enough to get near-100% acceptance. (Having moderators who delete dissenting content amplifies this effect - something iSteve would do well to note, given his weird habit of deleting responses to A123, JackD, Lot and other hasbara: there's something amiss there).

    TL;DR: it's not the masses' fault that their lack of processing power is exploited by assholes like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg, any more than it is feedlot cattle's fault for having an unhealthy ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 in their meat.

    Humans who do not actively guard against being force-fed one side of the story, can't hope to wind up with a trust network that learns to make unbiased guesses at truth values - even asymptotically (i.e., as the number of information sources becomes very large).

    (For a nice intro-level précis of a nice pedagogical model of trust networks with learning, fellow Kiwi Ben Davies has written a nice short post on the de Groot model, which is my favourite basic network model. His blog's good, too.)

    Replies: @Corvinus

  4. FEDGOV has no credibility anymore. It represents only a tiny fraction of the populace.

    The donor class is feeling the heat. They are buying bug out islands and bunkers.

    What cannot go on, won’t. No matter the opinions of people.

    You don’t vote on reality. The reality is this Failed State is morally and fiscally bankrupt.

    The debts are sky high. Wages are stagnant. Only a tiny group of uber rich are making it.

    This System is dissolving. Unraveling. The corrupt core is rotting away.

    Who is dumb enough to fight to keep their debts?

    Two hundred thousand men stand up and march on Washington, and this Game is Over.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @Dr. Doom

    Yeah, that's really the issue. Biden's laptop discredits him, and shows the pay to play nature of DC, but it also discredits the system even more. The entire thing is exposed as one giant skim that no longer serves any purpose to most Americans.

    Medicare and Social Security, despite directing a lot of national wealth to the elderly (in return for votes, but then those fuckers went and voted Trump in 2016), don't skim too much for running the programs, unlike the skim in medical insurance that's "private." But interest on the debt, most defense spending, and all the money spent in intelligence just goes to fund the self-licking ice cream cone for the power elite. The poor and middle class might will not get direct benefit from eliminating all of them, but it will humble the elite, and that alone will be worth it.

    , @Kratoklastes
    @Dr. Doom


    Two hundred thousand men stand up and march on Washington, and this Game is Over
     
    The marching bit would be a terrible idea - although it would show the masses two things:
    ① that the overlords have no qualms about ordering the strafing of uppity citizens, and
    ② that the janissaries have no qualms about complying with the order.

    Far easier and quicker would be for 3000 men to start an Afghan-style insurgency, where all politicians and senior apparatchiki face the risk that a committed adversary knows where they live, and janissaries spent every workday sweating on EFPs.
  5. One of the perils of universal suffrage is that it is difficult to do any sort of checksum.

  6. The only way out of this, if there is one, is, of course, Separation™.

    Separation into 330 million independent nations of one citizen each. It’s the only way, and it is inevitable, obviously.

  7. OT: two recent polls find prop 16 trailing. There haven’t been many polls so the possibility of error is still high but four out of five polls have it trailing. The PPIC also found that in the presidential race the white hispanic gap was only 2 points.

    https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2pr670k8
    https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-october-2020.pdf

    • Thanks: res, Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @t

    It's pretty frustrating that PredictIt doesn't have a market open on Prop 16. It has markets open on Props 15 and 22.

  8. Ooof, this is how Slobo got screwed over

  9. @Not my economy
    I support universal free college on the condition that we do it by turning all the professors and administrators into slaves who don’t get paid and can’t refuse to work.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @The Alarmist

    Turn the admins into slaves. The professors have earned the right to be serfs.

    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    @TomSchmidt

    The admins would be useless as slaves.
    They've never worked a day in their lives.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

  10. @Dr. Doom
    FEDGOV has no credibility anymore. It represents only a tiny fraction of the populace.

    The donor class is feeling the heat. They are buying bug out islands and bunkers.

    What cannot go on, won't. No matter the opinions of people.

    You don't vote on reality. The reality is this Failed State is morally and fiscally bankrupt.

    The debts are sky high. Wages are stagnant. Only a tiny group of uber rich are making it.

    This System is dissolving. Unraveling. The corrupt core is rotting away.

    Who is dumb enough to fight to keep their debts?

    Two hundred thousand men stand up and march on Washington, and this Game is Over.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Kratoklastes

    Yeah, that’s really the issue. Biden’s laptop discredits him, and shows the pay to play nature of DC, but it also discredits the system even more. The entire thing is exposed as one giant skim that no longer serves any purpose to most Americans.

    Medicare and Social Security, despite directing a lot of national wealth to the elderly (in return for votes, but then those fuckers went and voted Trump in 2016), don’t skim too much for running the programs, unlike the skim in medical insurance that’s “private.” But interest on the debt, most defense spending, and all the money spent in intelligence just goes to fund the self-licking ice cream cone for the power elite. The poor and middle class might will not get direct benefit from eliminating all of them, but it will humble the elite, and that alone will be worth it.

    • Agree: Ash Williams
  11. We won’t ever know what the actual votes were, only what those who count the votes declare the outcome to be.

    Unfortunately partly true.

    Did the Anglo-Saxon nations centuries ago not largely solve the problem of reliable, trustworthy election procedure? We needed no technology more advanced than the printing press to do it. We didn’t even need an electric light.

    If so, then maybe we Anglo-Saxons should have renounced efforts to improve fairness and efficiency a long time before the advent of the electronic voting device. A simple secret ballot paper [a] cast by a voter presenting himself in person at the poll on election day, [b] handled under the inspection of adversarial partisan witnesses within the same room in which the ballot paper had been cast, [c] finally recorded within that same room before natural daylight failed, and [d] statutorily not subject to recount once witnesses and the poll chief had left the room, would seem comparatively hard to cheat.

    • Agree: PhilK
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Stalin's maxim still holds as there is a hole wider than those created by the great wall of the 92 Cowboys offensive line between (b) and (c) as well as between (c) and (d).

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @El Dato

  12. @V. K. Ovelund

    We won’t ever know what the actual votes were, only what those who count the votes declare the outcome to be.
     
    Unfortunately partly true.

    Did the Anglo-Saxon nations centuries ago not largely solve the problem of reliable, trustworthy election procedure? We needed no technology more advanced than the printing press to do it. We didn't even need an electric light.

    If so, then maybe we Anglo-Saxons should have renounced efforts to improve fairness and efficiency a long time before the advent of the electronic voting device. A simple secret ballot paper [a] cast by a voter presenting himself in person at the poll on election day, [b] handled under the inspection of adversarial partisan witnesses within the same room in which the ballot paper had been cast, [c] finally recorded within that same room before natural daylight failed, and [d] statutorily not subject to recount once witnesses and the poll chief had left the room, would seem comparatively hard to cheat.

    Replies: @Liberty Mike

    Stalin’s maxim still holds as there is a hole wider than those created by the great wall of the 92 Cowboys offensive line between (b) and (c) as well as between (c) and (d).

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Liberty Mike


    Stalin’s maxim still holds as there is a hole wider than those created by the great wall of the 92 Cowboys offensive line between (b) and (c) as well as between (c) and (d).
     
    Perhaps so, but we used to do something to plug those holes, didn't we? If so, then is there a good reason not to return to that old practice?

    (Whenever I suggest returning to an old practice, the formidable @dfordoom tends to explain why one cannot return, but I wasn't making a reactionary point generally. I was referring to a specific procedure—whatever that was—that as far as I know used to work. The public apparently lacks confidence in election procedure now.)

    Replies: @Liberty Mike, @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    , @El Dato
    @Liberty Mike

    But Why?

    Because counting is now a skill relegated to members of the elite?

  13. great wall of the 92 Cowboys offensive line

    I don’t follow the NFL any longer, but I think that’s a few too many men on the field.

  14. @Jtgw
    Beautiful and scary to watch the government lose legitimacy so rapidly. Unfortunately I’m afraid it won’t lead to peaceful breakup but more naked power struggles and violence.

    Replies: @Realist

    Beautiful and scary to watch the government lose legitimacy so rapidly.

    For those that have been paying attention…it hasn’t been rapid…but decades in the making.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Realist

    Slowly at first, then all at once.

  15. @Liberty Mike
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Stalin's maxim still holds as there is a hole wider than those created by the great wall of the 92 Cowboys offensive line between (b) and (c) as well as between (c) and (d).

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @El Dato

    Stalin’s maxim still holds as there is a hole wider than those created by the great wall of the 92 Cowboys offensive line between (b) and (c) as well as between (c) and (d).

    Perhaps so, but we used to do something to plug those holes, didn’t we? If so, then is there a good reason not to return to that old practice?

    (Whenever I suggest returning to an old practice, the formidable tends to explain why one cannot return, but I wasn’t making a reactionary point generally. I was referring to a specific procedure—whatever that was—that as far as I know used to work. The public apparently lacks confidence in election procedure now.)

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Agreed.

    The old practice would appear to be superior to what we do today.

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    , @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Whenever I suggest returning to an old practice, the formidable @dfordoom tends to explain why one cannot return, but I wasn’t making a reactionary point generally. I was referring to a specific procedure—whatever that was—that as far as I know used to work.
     
    I agree with you on this point. Conducting free and fair elections is trivially easy. You only need 19th century technology to do it. Third World countries routinely conduct free and fair elections.

    The real problem however isn't the mechanics of voting. That could be solved very very easily. The real problem is that you have a political system that is corrupt all the way through. Neither side wants to change that because both sides are benefiting. Both sides have their snouts in the trough. That's why the swamp isn't going to get drained. Both sides like living in that swamp because it offers so many opportunities to corruptly enrich themselves. Politicians on both sides like the fact that a political career means lots and lots of lovely money, most of it obtained corruptly (either by direct corruption or indirect corruption).

    Any calls for changes to the voting system will frighten both sides - it might lead to calls to clean up the rest of the corrupt system. No more of that lovely lovely money.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    @V. K. Ovelund

    That process would be condemned by all the power centers as voter suppression. It demands too much of the voter, they'll say. We know what that means.

  16. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Liberty Mike


    Stalin’s maxim still holds as there is a hole wider than those created by the great wall of the 92 Cowboys offensive line between (b) and (c) as well as between (c) and (d).
     
    Perhaps so, but we used to do something to plug those holes, didn't we? If so, then is there a good reason not to return to that old practice?

    (Whenever I suggest returning to an old practice, the formidable @dfordoom tends to explain why one cannot return, but I wasn't making a reactionary point generally. I was referring to a specific procedure—whatever that was—that as far as I know used to work. The public apparently lacks confidence in election procedure now.)

    Replies: @Liberty Mike, @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    Agreed.

    The old practice would appear to be superior to what we do today.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard
    @Liberty Mike


    The old practice would appear to be superior to what we do today.
     
    I've always been bemused that Diebold and NCR are perfectly capable of building a range of ATMs with a myriad of functions that work 99.9% of the time and are able to generate paper and email receipts, yet making a similiar electronic voting machine is, "just too hard."

    I feel it shows us what the real priorities are.
  17. @TomSchmidt
    @Not my economy

    Turn the admins into slaves. The professors have earned the right to be serfs.

    Replies: @Adam Smith

    The admins would be useless as slaves.
    They’ve never worked a day in their lives.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • LOL: TomSchmidt
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    @Adam Smith

    Then they'd make good filler.

  18. maybe free college for everyone–all the way through the post-graduate level–will do the trick!

    Lol…

  19. @Targaleto
    I think the problem is not the institutions; it's the people, who intentionally place themselves in filter bubbles and pretend the entire country already agrees with them, easy as it spares them the need to actually change other peoples' minds. I'm sure there are many people here who are certain that the majority of the country supports Trump. To those I ask, why do you believe that? "My beliefs are just obviously true and everyone who's thought about it must agree?" Well guess what, even if that were true, the large majority of the country hasn't thought about it. They can't even name the three branches of government.

    Replies: @Adam Smith, @Kratoklastes

    They can’t even name the three branches of government.

    Yeah, but almost half of them can find America on a map.

  20. anon[146] • Disclaimer says:

    Anybody who remembers 2000 or 2004 will say so. Installing dynastic spook brat GW Bush was never going to be left to the will of the electors.

    The only difference this time is everybody knows what’s going on. CIA got too cocky about their ingenious choice of opponent for trusted cadre Hillary. But Hillary’s telltale CIA psychoses made her even more repulsive than the designated chump. The overt CIA-led vilification campaign that followed Trump’s election makes it clear what CIA expects of you voter dupes.

    Trump is a political protege of Stone. He replicated the Nixon playbook, which was inimical to CIA from beginning to end. Trump threatened transparency about the JFK coup. No candidate has done that since RFK, ’nuff said. What’s more, Trump feinted at a second look at CIA’s blatant twin-towers demolition.

    I will be incredulous if anything BUT the following happens: Both Trump and Biden tragically die and Harris gives her inauguration speech with three laser dots on her head.

    • Troll: Corvinus
  21. @Liberty Mike
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Stalin's maxim still holds as there is a hole wider than those created by the great wall of the 92 Cowboys offensive line between (b) and (c) as well as between (c) and (d).

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @El Dato

    But Why?

    Because counting is now a skill relegated to members of the elite?

  22. @Adam Smith
    @TomSchmidt

    The admins would be useless as slaves.
    They've never worked a day in their lives.

    Replies: @Cloudbuster

    Then they’d make good filler.

  23. I think you are right in asking when it will all fall apart, A.E., but this is another poll question that I think sucks. Is it asking whether I feel that the office should be in limbo because it wasn’t really decided right, or whether I just think there is enough cheating going on (and there is!) that in a close race won by a D, I can’t be sure the R shouldn’t have won?

    I don’t know about these poll question-makers? Did they go to graduate school?

    How ’bout this: “Do you think that cheating or fraud in this election process is enough so that it could change the outcome?”

    • Agree: Charlotte
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "How ’bout this: “Do you think that cheating or fraud in this election process is enough so that it could change the outcome?”"

    No. Because rampant voter vote is a myth. Trump stated that if he wins, it was a fair election, and if he loses, then there was massive cheating. He cannot have it both ways.

    The fact of the matter is that there has been increasing disinformation and misinformation within the past four years how voter fraud supposedly on a wide scale exists. It requires little to no evidence, but just the belief that it does occur. And it does not help that Trump talks about a third term or that he will refuse to concede, and that it is taking GOP leaders to plan a course of action in the event he follows through.

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-carl-bernstein-says-gop-senators-worried-trump-fight-vote-20201026-glq6grr7wzg6xnftvbmvk2dm5e-story.html

    Normal Americans recognize that Trump is not well.

    Replies: @anon, @Curle, @dfordoom, @Mark G.

  24. Outcomes might be incredible, but only people can be incredulous.

  25. How ’bout this: “Do you think that cheating or fraud in this election process is enough so that it could change the outcome?”

    To answer your poll question, I don’t think so. I do not expect fraud to play a decisive role in this election.

    Cheating and fraud in elections is just picketing. It’s like the intelligence agencies of rival countries who constantly try to hack each other’s computer networks. Both sides do it, not because they expect great success but because they need to continuously affirm whether or not the enemy is still capable of putting up a fight. If the FSB ever succeeded at completely penetrating the CIA, it would mean that the CIA had effectively stopped functioning and that many other things were rapidly collapsing in America.

    Similarly, if one side’s fraud ever succeeded in throwing an election without the other side being able to do anything about it, it would mean that we have effectively ceased to have any electoral system at all. Not long thereafter even fraud would be unnecessary as mere untrammeled force would suffice.

    All democracies end this way and ours will be no exception, but I don’t think we have reached that day just yet.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Electronic voting machines were developed because they are subject to hacking. That's a feature, not a bug. Both sides have enough software talent to totally corrupt the electronic voting process.

    The Bush 2004 election was definitely stolen via hacking in Ohio. They used a man in the middle attack to change the votes to their liking. Anyone in the networking / software / hacking business, like me, knows this if they researched the issue.

    All the noise over screwing with the paper / mail in ballots is just a smoke screen to cover where the real action is going to take place. While everyone will be reading about ballots in trash cans or set on fire, the electronic hacking by both parties will be going on under the radar.

    Both political parties can manufacture votes in any quantity they want. The idiots that waste their time voting provide cover for this process by displaying activity around poling locations. If everyone would stay home, then the manufactured votes might stick out like a sore thumb. That's why they still have a get out to vote propaganda operation.

    The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.
    Joseph Stalin

    Replies: @brabantian

    , @anon
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Similarly, if one side’s fraud ever succeeded in throwing an election without the other side being able to do anything about it, it would mean that we have effectively ceased to have any electoral system at all.

    Childish binary thinking on display once again. Dude, what's your explanation for how Al Franken became a sitting Senator? Did he fit the neo-Platonic Form of a "senator" better than his opponent? Or did the DFL's "find" enough fake ballots in a car trunk to fraudulently create victory, thereby throwing an election without the other side being able to do anything about it?

    lol @ Ignatius.

    DrDoom
    Two hundred thousand men stand up and march on Washington, and this Game is Over.

    lol @ the ignorance of history around here. It's as if every day is the first day of school, perpetually.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Bonus_Army

  26. the media and the oligarchs that own them overtly pushing a narrative they prefer over facts have sowed the wind and now somewhere in the next 10-12 years they will reap the whirlwind as the corporation, errr nation they control implodes.

  27. Mr Epigone says:

    How far and for how long can trust in every major institution and process in the country fall before the country itself does? What is the hypothetical mechanism that arrests and then reverses the decline? Rhetorical, it seems. Or maybe free college for everyone–all the way through the post-graduate level–will do the trick!

    I say:

    The country has fallen to the villainy and treason of the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire a long time ago in a place far away in our memories, and the American Empire is strangling and extinguishing those White Core Americans who could recreate and continue the spirit of roaming and settling and conquering Whites from the steppes to the peninsula off the great Asian land mass called Europe to the Germanic forest clearings to America and Australia and all over and to space and the oceans.

    The use and abuse of the debt-based fiat currency medium of exchange to buy off greedy and weak and cowardly White slobs born before 1965 using asset bubbles and debt has temporarily interrupted the exchange of cultural continuum that ordinarily occurs between generations and the nasty greedy White slobs born before 1965 believe they’ll play out their string with all the goodies and all the crocodile tears about how bad bad bad Whitey was and is and the young Whites in White Core America have had enough of that crud and they want to guard and protect their families and their people and their country and their nation and they recognize that the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire has used the government of the USA as a political weapon to destroy the historic American nation and to attack the European Christian ancestral core of the USA.

    The obvious decline of the American Empire must not be arrested as it were; it must be accelerated to the final dislodgement and forcible exile of the evil and treasonous JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire.

    The sonofabitches couldn’t even get the federal funds rate to 3 percent from the Obama Zero Interest Rate Policy before the asset bubbles in stocks and bonds and real estate — commercial and residential — started to implode.

    The oncoming implosion of the Biden Asset Bubble shall destroy and dislodge the evil and treasonous JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire.

    The JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire resembles the Saxons behind their shield wall at Senlac Hill in 1066, and the proud and brave WHITE CORE AMERICANS are the Normans come to conquer and to claim by battle their rightful inheritance.

    More pretentious crap like that for thousands of words until Wednesday of November 4 or the next Wednesday after that or until the happy destruction of the evil Republican Party clears the way for the new political party called White Core America.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Charles Pewitt

    Just fuck OFF you overly-wordy son of a bitch.  Everyone worthwhile on this forum has you on ignore, as I do.  GO AWAY ALREADY!

    Replies: @nebulafox

  28. @Intelligent Dasein

    How ’bout this: “Do you think that cheating or fraud in this election process is enough so that it could change the outcome?"
     
    To answer your poll question, I don't think so. I do not expect fraud to play a decisive role in this election.

    Cheating and fraud in elections is just picketing. It's like the intelligence agencies of rival countries who constantly try to hack each other's computer networks. Both sides do it, not because they expect great success but because they need to continuously affirm whether or not the enemy is still capable of putting up a fight. If the FSB ever succeeded at completely penetrating the CIA, it would mean that the CIA had effectively stopped functioning and that many other things were rapidly collapsing in America.

    Similarly, if one side's fraud ever succeeded in throwing an election without the other side being able to do anything about it, it would mean that we have effectively ceased to have any electoral system at all. Not long thereafter even fraud would be unnecessary as mere untrammeled force would suffice.

    All democracies end this way and ours will be no exception, but I don't think we have reached that day just yet.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @anon

    Electronic voting machines were developed because they are subject to hacking. That’s a feature, not a bug. Both sides have enough software talent to totally corrupt the electronic voting process.

    The Bush 2004 election was definitely stolen via hacking in Ohio. They used a man in the middle attack to change the votes to their liking. Anyone in the networking / software / hacking business, like me, knows this if they researched the issue.

    All the noise over screwing with the paper / mail in ballots is just a smoke screen to cover where the real action is going to take place. While everyone will be reading about ballots in trash cans or set on fire, the electronic hacking by both parties will be going on under the radar.

    Both political parties can manufacture votes in any quantity they want. The idiots that waste their time voting provide cover for this process by displaying activity around poling locations. If everyone would stay home, then the manufactured votes might stick out like a sore thumb. That’s why they still have a get out to vote propaganda operation.

    The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.
    Joseph Stalin

    • Replies: @brabantian
    @RoatanBill

    This is the apparent original in English of that oft-quoted Joe Stalin maxim

    https://i.ibb.co/5k5wdt6/Stalin-on-voting.jpg

    Replies: @Corvinus

  29. @Targaleto
    I think the problem is not the institutions; it's the people, who intentionally place themselves in filter bubbles and pretend the entire country already agrees with them, easy as it spares them the need to actually change other peoples' minds. I'm sure there are many people here who are certain that the majority of the country supports Trump. To those I ask, why do you believe that? "My beliefs are just obviously true and everyone who's thought about it must agree?" Well guess what, even if that were true, the large majority of the country hasn't thought about it. They can't even name the three branches of government.

    Replies: @Adam Smith, @Kratoklastes

    the people, who intentionally place themselves in filter bubbles

    Disagree; they are unwittingly placed in filter bubbles. They don’t understand the ramifications of having a ‘tailored’ information network, when the tailor’s objective is to maximise eyeballs on advertisements.

    Two people who differ only in political opinion, are likely to get non-intersecting political content in ‘feeds’ from the data-curation platforms that come pre-installed on their phones. When it comes to a matter of controversy, there is a very good chance that they never get to see any data that represents the ‘other side’ (except perhaps in caricature).

    They don’t know that, and are incapable of working it out by brute force, so there is no incentive for them to install an alternative aggregator (assuming they were able to identify a neutral aggregator, which they aren’t).

    Face it: the vast mass of humanity do not have the cognitive machinery to work out that they’re only getting half the story – especially for stories that they consider important (or that they are told they ought to consider important).

    Furthermore, they cannot evaluate data that is represented; models that are used; the coherence of rhetorical content; or the plausibility of the conclusions.

    To get a vague idea just how far up the cognitive ladder this goes: look at r/science on Reddit – basically journalist-level drivel where priming a story by “Study shows” or “Scientists say” is enough to get near-100% acceptance. (Having moderators who delete dissenting content amplifies this effect – something iSteve would do well to note, given his weird habit of deleting responses to A123, JackD, Lot and other hasbara: there’s something amiss there).

    TL;DR: it’s not the masses’ fault that their lack of processing power is exploited by assholes like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg, any more than it is feedlot cattle’s fault for having an unhealthy ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 in their meat.

    Humans who do not actively guard against being force-fed one side of the story, can’t hope to wind up with a trust network that learns to make unbiased guesses at truth values – even asymptotically (i.e., as the number of information sources becomes very large).

    (For a nice intro-level précis of a nice pedagogical model of trust networks with learning, fellow Kiwi Ben Davies has written a nice short post on the de Groot model, which is my favourite basic network model. His blog’s good, too.)

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Kratoklastes

    "Disagree; they are unwittingly placed in filter bubbles."

    Patently false. White people especially are cognizant of their decision making, and make choices as to what they will and will not process.

    "They don’t understand the ramifications of having a ‘tailored’ information network, when the tailor’s objective is to maximise eyeballs on advertisements."

    You are essentially saying white people generally lack agency, that they are easily duped and manipulated.

    "Two people who differ only in political opinion, are likely to get non-intersecting political content in ‘feeds’ from the data-curation platforms that come pre-installed on their phones. When it comes to a matter of controversy, there is a very good chance that they never get to see any data that represents the ‘other side’ (except perhaps in caricature)."

    Not pre-installed, but far more likely that people, based on their online activity and behavior, will activate algorithms that send them supposedly desirable content. I would say that some people fall prey to that one-sidedness, but mostly people seek additional information to confirm or refute what they read or heard. However, there is a subset of people who are increasingly relying on the Fake News mantra, and are lazily making assumptions and drawing conclusions based on confirmation biases. As a result, there is dearth of intellectual curiosity and self-reflection.

    "They don’t know that, and are incapable of working it out by brute force, so there is no incentive for them to install an alternative aggregator (assuming they were able to identify a neutral aggregator, which they aren’t)."

    According to Who/Whom?

    "Face it: the vast mass of humanity do not have the cognitive machinery to work out that they’re only getting half the story – especially for stories that they consider important (or that they are told they ought to consider important)."

    Are you suggesting that high IQ white people lack the requisite intellectual horsepower to ponder and ruminate? Really?

    Furthermore, it seems you are inferring that you are not part of this "mass humanity". OK, so how do YOU, compared to others, possess this "cognitive machinery"?

    "Furthermore, they cannot evaluate data that is represented; models that are used; the coherence of rhetorical content; or the plausibility of the conclusions."

    You mean those who are a slave to confirmation bias and seek ideas/data from echo chambers.

    "(Having moderators who delete dissenting content amplifies this effect – something iSteve would do well to note, given his weird habit of deleting responses to A123, JackD, Lot and other hasbara: there’s something amiss there)."

    And you know this specifically how?

    "it’s not the masses’ fault that their lack of processing power is exploited by assholes like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg..."

    But you are other than exploited. OK, what skill set do you employ compared to your fellow white brethren? Why are you not assisting them from not being bamboozled?

    Replies: @Kratoklastes, @Kratoklastes

  30. How far and for how long can trust in every major institution and process in the country fall before the country itself does?

    I think for quite some time, imo. Anyway, if the Corona doesn’t take us out we are going to find out in the next few years. We are coasting in on our reserves and those are extensive.

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  31. @RoatanBill
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Electronic voting machines were developed because they are subject to hacking. That's a feature, not a bug. Both sides have enough software talent to totally corrupt the electronic voting process.

    The Bush 2004 election was definitely stolen via hacking in Ohio. They used a man in the middle attack to change the votes to their liking. Anyone in the networking / software / hacking business, like me, knows this if they researched the issue.

    All the noise over screwing with the paper / mail in ballots is just a smoke screen to cover where the real action is going to take place. While everyone will be reading about ballots in trash cans or set on fire, the electronic hacking by both parties will be going on under the radar.

    Both political parties can manufacture votes in any quantity they want. The idiots that waste their time voting provide cover for this process by displaying activity around poling locations. If everyone would stay home, then the manufactured votes might stick out like a sore thumb. That's why they still have a get out to vote propaganda operation.

    The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.
    Joseph Stalin

    Replies: @brabantian

    This is the apparent original in English of that oft-quoted Joe Stalin maxim

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @brabantian

    Like a typical Russian, Stalin stole that quote from Thomas Nast, political cartoonist.

    http://masshist.org/database/viewer.php?item_id=5900&pid=41

  32. @Dr. Doom
    FEDGOV has no credibility anymore. It represents only a tiny fraction of the populace.

    The donor class is feeling the heat. They are buying bug out islands and bunkers.

    What cannot go on, won't. No matter the opinions of people.

    You don't vote on reality. The reality is this Failed State is morally and fiscally bankrupt.

    The debts are sky high. Wages are stagnant. Only a tiny group of uber rich are making it.

    This System is dissolving. Unraveling. The corrupt core is rotting away.

    Who is dumb enough to fight to keep their debts?

    Two hundred thousand men stand up and march on Washington, and this Game is Over.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Kratoklastes

    Two hundred thousand men stand up and march on Washington, and this Game is Over

    The marching bit would be a terrible idea – although it would show the masses two things:
    ① that the overlords have no qualms about ordering the strafing of uppity citizens, and
    ② that the janissaries have no qualms about complying with the order.

    Far easier and quicker would be for 3000 men to start an Afghan-style insurgency, where all politicians and senior apparatchiki face the risk that a committed adversary knows where they live, and janissaries spent every workday sweating on EFPs.

  33. The reason this election has no validity has nothing to do with counting and everything to do with censorship and big tech manipulations.

    The basic flow of information is junked by Google and other big tech, and it isn’t only the bannings.

    Biden’s corruption story was literally banned on Twitter and Facebook.

    And then crap like this:

    “Election Interference: Google Suppresses Breitbart News in Search – Even with Exact Headline”

    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/27/election-interference-google-suppresses-breitbart-news-in-search-even-with-exact-headline/

    Breitbart was arguably the most influential news site in 2016 and now it is simply frozen out. As are countless others. Many more conservative sites are deranked in various ways — get something off the front page of Google and you have effectively killed it.

    But this shocked me: The doctor that has been arguably the most authoritative voice on twitter regarding COVID and lockdowns — reliably bringing the alarmism — isn’t even a doctor at all!

    https://jordanschachtel.substack.com/p/the-impersonator-eric-feigl-ding

    As a great COVID authority he now appears in Biden commercials attacking Trump, but he was never a medical doctor at all, and he has been a far-left operative for many years.

    Don’t forget that big tech censored as “COVID misinformation during a pandemic” (basically a new censorship category of ‘grandmakiller’) anything that resisted the COVID panic — then of course panic won because it was the only thing allowed and Trump had to buck the consensus by rejecting panic.

    Conservatives obsess about the counting of votes, as if that’s where they are being cheated.

    No, the reason our election has no validity is because of tech censorship.

    The answer isn’t to try some stupid and lengthy section 230 process over many years. The answer for conservatives politicians to declare that Google/Facebook/YouTube have, by their censorship, destroyed the legitimacy of a Biden win.

    Republican Senators should simply declare:

    “Joe Biden will not ever be a legitimate president. Google ruined that.”

    “Twitter Censorship Stripped Biden of His Political Legitimacy.”

    “Because of Facebook’s Censorship, Joe Biden has now lost the chance to legitimately win the Presidency”

    Rejecting the legitimacy of the political process because of censorship not a move I expect Milquetoast Republicans to make. But it is the truth, and the only way I see to address what has actually happened. Our Democracy is just about dead and big tech is the culprit.

    • Agree: V. Hickel
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Dan Hess

    Our Democracy is just about dead and big tech is the culprit.

    It makes the bizarre obsession with installing Kamala Harris into the White House by any means necessary more comprehensible now, doesn't it?

  34. anon[321] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    How ’bout this: “Do you think that cheating or fraud in this election process is enough so that it could change the outcome?"
     
    To answer your poll question, I don't think so. I do not expect fraud to play a decisive role in this election.

    Cheating and fraud in elections is just picketing. It's like the intelligence agencies of rival countries who constantly try to hack each other's computer networks. Both sides do it, not because they expect great success but because they need to continuously affirm whether or not the enemy is still capable of putting up a fight. If the FSB ever succeeded at completely penetrating the CIA, it would mean that the CIA had effectively stopped functioning and that many other things were rapidly collapsing in America.

    Similarly, if one side's fraud ever succeeded in throwing an election without the other side being able to do anything about it, it would mean that we have effectively ceased to have any electoral system at all. Not long thereafter even fraud would be unnecessary as mere untrammeled force would suffice.

    All democracies end this way and ours will be no exception, but I don't think we have reached that day just yet.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @anon

    Similarly, if one side’s fraud ever succeeded in throwing an election without the other side being able to do anything about it, it would mean that we have effectively ceased to have any electoral system at all.

    Childish binary thinking on display once again. Dude, what’s your explanation for how Al Franken became a sitting Senator? Did he fit the neo-Platonic Form of a “senator” better than his opponent? Or did the DFL’s “find” enough fake ballots in a car trunk to fraudulently create victory, thereby throwing an election without the other side being able to do anything about it?

    lol @ Ignatius.

    DrDoom
    Two hundred thousand men stand up and march on Washington, and this Game is Over.

    lol @ the ignorance of history around here. It’s as if every day is the first day of school, perpetually.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Bonus_Army

  35. Judging by the example of the Soviet Union and discounting for time compression through accelerated technology, I’d say we’re most of the way through our age of disillusionment.

    The Fall of Amerika … coming to a closed theatre near you in Spring 2021.

  36. Get your MIGA hats ready, and draw a nice crosshairs in the middle.

    T- 7 days, and counting…

    https://worldstar.com/video-c.php?v=wshhP5K73qwgzTc9E3va#comments-arena

  37. @Not my economy
    I support universal free college on the condition that we do it by turning all the professors and administrators into slaves who don’t get paid and can’t refuse to work.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @The Alarmist

    I support universal free college on the condition that we do it by turning all the professors and administrators into slaves who don’t get paid and can’t refuse to work.

    Pol Pot’s Agrarian Socialist Society was a better plan for dealing with useless academics and their students.

  38. @Liberty Mike
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Agreed.

    The old practice would appear to be superior to what we do today.

    Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    The old practice would appear to be superior to what we do today.

    I’ve always been bemused that Diebold and NCR are perfectly capable of building a range of ATMs with a myriad of functions that work 99.9% of the time and are able to generate paper and email receipts, yet making a similiar electronic voting machine is, “just too hard.”

    I feel it shows us what the real priorities are.

  39. @Achmed E. Newman
    I think you are right in asking when it will all fall apart, A.E., but this is another poll question that I think sucks. Is it asking whether I feel that the office should be in limbo because it wasn't really decided right, or whether I just think there is enough cheating going on (and there is!) that in a close race won by a D, I can't be sure the R shouldn't have won?

    I don't know about these poll question-makers? Did they go to graduate school?

    How 'bout this: "Do you think that cheating or fraud in this election process is enough so that it could change the outcome?"

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “How ’bout this: “Do you think that cheating or fraud in this election process is enough so that it could change the outcome?””

    No. Because rampant voter vote is a myth. Trump stated that if he wins, it was a fair election, and if he loses, then there was massive cheating. He cannot have it both ways.

    The fact of the matter is that there has been increasing disinformation and misinformation within the past four years how voter fraud supposedly on a wide scale exists. It requires little to no evidence, but just the belief that it does occur. And it does not help that Trump talks about a third term or that he will refuse to concede, and that it is taking GOP leaders to plan a course of action in the event he follows through.

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-carl-bernstein-says-gop-senators-worried-trump-fight-vote-20201026-glq6grr7wzg6xnftvbmvk2dm5e-story.html

    Normal Americans recognize that Trump is not well.

    • Troll: VinnyVette
    • Replies: @anon
    @Corvinus

    Because rampant voter vote is a myth

    Lol, thanks for handing us the official line of the week. I've personally seen an election stolen at the state and local level via rather simple rigging of selected voting machines; via a late delivery of many provisional ballots; via delayed votes from outlying areas...all the usual stuff. Sometimes the Party here gets carried away and delivers over 100% of the possible vote for a candidate, as happened in parts of Philly in 2008, but usually just enough fraudulent votes show up to carry a selected candidate to victory as the people's choice.

    Not old news, some of this happened in 2018. Reporting it to the designated authorities is a waste of time, too. Guess why? Something something "party" something, eh?

    Normal Americans recognize that Trump is not well.

    What does a paid shill like you know about normal Americans?
    lol.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Curle
    @Corvinus

    “No. Because rampant voter vote is a myth.”

    Says a guy robotically mouthing talking points pumped into his brain by media corporations about whom he has no serious knowledge regarding their ownership structure and more importantly has no serious knowledge of those who lent them money.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @dfordoom
    @Corvinus


    Trump stated that if he wins, it was a fair election, and if he loses, then there was massive cheating.
     
    That's pretty much true of both sides. Whichever side wins will say that the election was totally fair and whichever side loses will accuse the other of cheating.

    Whether there is any actual vote fraud is irrelevant. In modern American politics there is no need to bother about annoying inconveniences like evidence.

    For whichever side loses the very fact that they lost will be seen as sufficient evidence that the other side must have cheated. Both sides have talked themselves into a frame of mind in which it is inconceivable that they could lose a fair election.

    This is how politics works in the Third World. Even in an extremely rich Third World country like the US (which as far as politics is concerned has been a Third World nation for quite some time).

    Whichever way the election goes there will be supporters of both sides calling for their opponents to be prosecuted and imprisoned. That is also how politics works in the Third World.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Mark G.
    @Corvinus


    No. Because rampant voter vote is a myth.
     
    Rampant voter vote? Did you mean rampant voter fraud?


    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/texas-ballot-chaser-reveals-massive-voter-fraud-elect-biden

    https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/10/26/nolte-new-york-times-accidentally-confirms-breitbarts-voter-fraud-reporting/

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/philadelphias-horrible-record-democrat-voter-fraud-hits-new-low-voting-machine-laptop-memory-sticks-stolen/

    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/vote-by-mail-fraud/

    Replies: @Corvinus

  40. @brabantian
    @RoatanBill

    This is the apparent original in English of that oft-quoted Joe Stalin maxim

    https://i.ibb.co/5k5wdt6/Stalin-on-voting.jpg

    Replies: @Corvinus

    Like a typical Russian, Stalin stole that quote from Thomas Nast, political cartoonist.

    http://masshist.org/database/viewer.php?item_id=5900&pid=41

  41. @Kratoklastes
    @Targaleto


    the people, who intentionally place themselves in filter bubbles
     
    Disagree; they are unwittingly placed in filter bubbles. They don't understand the ramifications of having a 'tailored' information network, when the tailor's objective is to maximise eyeballs on advertisements.

    Two people who differ only in political opinion, are likely to get non-intersecting political content in 'feeds' from the data-curation platforms that come pre-installed on their phones. When it comes to a matter of controversy, there is a very good chance that they never get to see any data that represents the 'other side' (except perhaps in caricature).

    They don't know that, and are incapable of working it out by brute force, so there is no incentive for them to install an alternative aggregator (assuming they were able to identify a neutral aggregator, which they aren't).

    Face it: the vast mass of humanity do not have the cognitive machinery to work out that they're only getting half the story - especially for stories that they consider important (or that they are told they ought to consider important).

    Furthermore, they cannot evaluate data that is represented; models that are used; the coherence of rhetorical content; or the plausibility of the conclusions.

    To get a vague idea just how far up the cognitive ladder this goes: look at r/science on Reddit - basically journalist-level drivel where priming a story by "Study shows" or "Scientists say" is enough to get near-100% acceptance. (Having moderators who delete dissenting content amplifies this effect - something iSteve would do well to note, given his weird habit of deleting responses to A123, JackD, Lot and other hasbara: there's something amiss there).

    TL;DR: it's not the masses' fault that their lack of processing power is exploited by assholes like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg, any more than it is feedlot cattle's fault for having an unhealthy ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 in their meat.

    Humans who do not actively guard against being force-fed one side of the story, can't hope to wind up with a trust network that learns to make unbiased guesses at truth values - even asymptotically (i.e., as the number of information sources becomes very large).

    (For a nice intro-level précis of a nice pedagogical model of trust networks with learning, fellow Kiwi Ben Davies has written a nice short post on the de Groot model, which is my favourite basic network model. His blog's good, too.)

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Disagree; they are unwittingly placed in filter bubbles.”

    Patently false. White people especially are cognizant of their decision making, and make choices as to what they will and will not process.

    “They don’t understand the ramifications of having a ‘tailored’ information network, when the tailor’s objective is to maximise eyeballs on advertisements.”

    You are essentially saying white people generally lack agency, that they are easily duped and manipulated.

    “Two people who differ only in political opinion, are likely to get non-intersecting political content in ‘feeds’ from the data-curation platforms that come pre-installed on their phones. When it comes to a matter of controversy, there is a very good chance that they never get to see any data that represents the ‘other side’ (except perhaps in caricature).”

    Not pre-installed, but far more likely that people, based on their online activity and behavior, will activate algorithms that send them supposedly desirable content. I would say that some people fall prey to that one-sidedness, but mostly people seek additional information to confirm or refute what they read or heard. However, there is a subset of people who are increasingly relying on the Fake News mantra, and are lazily making assumptions and drawing conclusions based on confirmation biases. As a result, there is dearth of intellectual curiosity and self-reflection.

    “They don’t know that, and are incapable of working it out by brute force, so there is no incentive for them to install an alternative aggregator (assuming they were able to identify a neutral aggregator, which they aren’t).”

    According to Who/Whom?

    “Face it: the vast mass of humanity do not have the cognitive machinery to work out that they’re only getting half the story – especially for stories that they consider important (or that they are told they ought to consider important).”

    Are you suggesting that high IQ white people lack the requisite intellectual horsepower to ponder and ruminate? Really?

    Furthermore, it seems you are inferring that you are not part of this “mass humanity”. OK, so how do YOU, compared to others, possess this “cognitive machinery”?

    “Furthermore, they cannot evaluate data that is represented; models that are used; the coherence of rhetorical content; or the plausibility of the conclusions.”

    You mean those who are a slave to confirmation bias and seek ideas/data from echo chambers.

    “(Having moderators who delete dissenting content amplifies this effect – something iSteve would do well to note, given his weird habit of deleting responses to A123, JackD, Lot and other hasbara: there’s something amiss there).”

    And you know this specifically how?

    “it’s not the masses’ fault that their lack of processing power is exploited by assholes like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg…”

    But you are other than exploited. OK, what skill set do you employ compared to your fellow white brethren? Why are you not assisting them from not being bamboozled?

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    @Corvinus

    Oddly, I find I cannot post a comprehensive reply to your comment above. What appears below has been pared down to remove links to published research and the PIAAC repository. Hopefully it was the presence of links that was the issue.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Linkless, Reference-less Text ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Your word-salad does a disservice to the data from well-conducted, large-sample research spanning 3 decades. It shows that you're hypothesising about groupwise cognitive competency, without bothering to test your hypotheses against readily-available evidence.

    That's the opposite of science: yours is a belief system (I always use the word 'belief' pejoratively).

    It is absolutely, overwhelmingly clear - from PIAAC, to quote just one methodologically-transparent source - that adults below the 90th cognitive/competency percentile do not routinely possess the skills required to parse narratives that include rhetorical/persuasive content.

    The 90th percentile lines up (roughly) with an IQ of 120 - a run-of-the-mill college graduate (with virtually no constraint on the quality of the college).

    Possessing those skills is the definition of PIAAC 'Level IV'... and in the US the 90th percentile is barely above the lower bound of Level IV.

    The lower bound for Level IV is 325 ; the 90th percentile score in the US is 330.

    The median for Level IV is 348, which is higher than the 95th percentile US score of 330.

    The lower bound for Level V is 375: the proportion of US adults who achieve Level V is significantly less than 1% (as a result, Level V numbers are not reported separately any more).

    The definition:


    Level IV:

    can perform multiple-step operations to integrate, interpret, or synthesise information from complex or lengthy continuous, non-continuous, mixed, or multiple-type texts that involve conditional and/or competing information. They can make complex inferences and appropriately apply background knowledge as well as interpret or evaluate subtle truth claims or arguments.
     
    Frankly, that description strikes me as inadequate. In reality Level V is required:

    ...perform tasks that involve searching for and integrating information across multiple, dense texts; constructing syntheses of similar and contrasting ideas or points of view, or evaluating evidence and arguments. They can apply and evaluate logical and conceptual models, and evaluate the reliability of evidentiary sources and select key information. They are aware of subtle, rhetorical cues and are able to make high-level inferences or use specialised background knowledge.
     
    I have posted the PIAAC main results time and time and time again: if you haven't seen them, I've appended them elsewhere in this thread.

    It would pay to read them reasonably closely, even though it's a few hundred pages - there are a lot of tables, charts etc, so there's not that much text. Plus, you've had since 2013 to become familiar with them, but you haven't bothered to.

    Doing so really ought to disabuse you of the naïve idea that the Mass Man is working useful cognitive machinery.

    The Mass Man does not reach PIAAC 'Level III', which is roughly in line with a moderately dim grade 9 student. It used to be defined as the

    "minimum required for individuals to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work in the emerging knowledge-based economy"
     
    That definition was altered under pressure from the US, because the media US adult fails to achieve Level III.

    What is really clear.

    When you think of the Mass Man (say, within σ of the mean), your mental image is an idealised individual who carefully evaluates competing narratives, and who actively seeks sources of information that run against his prior or preferences.

    You've describe a 'Level IV' (actually, probably a 'Level V' - which is >99th percentile).

    That is not a representative person. If it were representative, the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) wouldn't exist.

    It's not even representative at genuinely élite (+2σ) IQs.

    Bear in mind that Kruger and Dunning found their eponymous effect in the bottom 75% of a class of Cornell psych undergraduates.

    Now Cornell undergraduates are ~99th percentile IQ at the median (entry SAT: 1480 at the median - which lines up with an IQ of 143 - the 99.85th percentile). The bottom quartile SAT for Cornell acceptance was 1420 (roughly an IQ of 139).

    As it happens I think the distributions in theIQ-SAT table are misaligned - my prior is that a 1440 lines up with an IQ in the mid-130s - but I take the table as read for present purposes.

    Now, let's assume Cornell Psych undergrads are 0.5σ stupider than the Cornell average, which would give them a mean IQ of 136 (99.18th percentile) and a bottom quartile IQ of 132.

    75% of that group of objectively-élite minds was found to fall victim to Dunning-Kruger's metacognitive 'double curse' - and yet in your mind [sic] the vast seething mass of dumbfounded dipshits are out there parsing compex narratives like a fucking boss.

    No sale. Just no.

    You're over-estimating humanity - you're even over-estimating humanity's cognitive élite.

    The fact that advertising isn't an obvious 100% failure indicates that a shitload of people can't parse a narrative. When you look at the data you've been ignoring for at least half a decade, you'll see they can't parse for shit. Of which, more below (and even more in my responses to your questions, which I've put in a reply by themselves).

    Recalibrate your mental model of the cognitive landscape. Understand that for the most part the bottom 6 deciles do not know or think (which is the same thing as trying to know)- they believe, which is a very different thing.

    As I've said before: this does not make them less-than-fully imbued with rights. It doesn't make them 'stupid', either: it's what an unimproved human mind does.

    Mass Man as I've characterised him is not inconsistent with 'rationality' in the economic context, either: 'rationality' implies that people make what they expect to be the best decision.

    To form their expectations they have to amass information; they do so until the expected cost exceeds the expected benefit as an input into the process by which they form expectations.

    Knowledge about the benefits of information is expensive: it requires a great deal of determined study, even for very bright people. There is no guarantee that the non-bright would understand the merits, so it's rational for them not to bother. It is rational for the cognitively weak to remain ignorant, and to believe that authority-based filters are the same as being able to think properly.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Corvinus

    , @Kratoklastes
    @Corvinus

    As to your questions... in reverse order:

    [I] know [iSteve runs interference for the hasbarats] specifically how?

    To clarify: I don't know. I have inferred; inferences have uncertainty, knowledge doesn't.

    The inference: a group of us who interact AFU (Away From Unz) has jointly noticed that at some point in controversies involving Zionist pilpul, responses to A123, Lot and JackD will be allowed through if and only if they make the anti-Zionist side look like low-information antisemitic rants.

    In other words, the field is cleared, leaving the impression that thoughtful antiZionists have walked away from the argument (which is interpreted as "the hasbarats won the field").

    Perhaps those three are regular contributors to a tip-jar, or perhaps iSteve is scared of being #MeJew'd; maybe he's insufficiently engaged in the issue, and sees shutting down the argument as sensible to improve the flow - it's just odd that it happens at the same point every.single.time (of which we are aware).

    Whatever is the driver, it's just seems clear that it happens consistently in those threads and almost no others.

    I had thought it was just my frequent and lusty use of profanity: it didn't bother me because I get entertainment just from writing stuff - this forum doesn't matter enough to self-impose a profanity filter in a bid to get past the wowsers.

    I had no way of knowing who else's material was/is being ditched in arguments with the aforementioned, or the point at which the debated was ended: then I find it's happened to several others of like mind, who do not use expletives at all. It'll all be collated and put into a nice little post elsewhere.

    ~

    Why [am I] not assisting [the masses] from not being bamboozled?

    It's not my job. I assist people in my kinship and friendship groups, where possible: very occasionally I'll waste some clock cycles on randos (e.g., the Unz audience) so long as it doesn't interrupt something important (like having a shit).

    I owe no debt to the seething mass of humanity - they get in my way, they eat of my substance, and they take up space that would be better dedicated to forests, open range, and attractive arrangements of edible herbs and berries. (I am 100% in favour of rapid global depopulation: I would prefer that it happened as a result of voluntary reproductive decisions, but whatever)

    ~

    What skill set do you employ compared to your fellow white brethren??

    I have no fraternal relationship - actual or imaginary - with 'white people'. My genetic brothers aren't white; my Masonic brethren aren't either.

    However the following is my shortlist:
    ① obsessive awareness regarding the information landscape;
    ② the cognitive grunt to process good data.

    Taking each in turn:

    Obsessive awareness

    This means intense, ongoing, active awareness of a bunch of things - including
     • DKE and its ramifications even for élite minds;
     • the difference between knowledge and belief;
     • how belief networks work and how they can get biased;
     • how propaganda works and how it is used and how to spot it;
     • how history has unfolded, and the role of belief biases and propaganda;
        and a bunch of other things, mostly related to technique in quantitative analysis.

    Things that, taken as a set, are understood by a vanishingly small slice of humanity, and actively practised by an even smaller slice. I have spent enough hours focused on this stuff to satisfy Malcolm Gladwell's fuckwitted trope, especially given the force multiplier that cognitive superiority entails.

    Awareness of those things would be roughly enough if - and only if - a person was a PIAAC Level V (i.e., inside the top 1% by competency).

    Which brings us to an obvious difference between me and the white race [IQ~(100,15) on a good day]...

    ②Cognitive grunt

    Elite cognition is not enough without ① - as Kruger and Dunning made clear 20 years ago - but it is necessary.

    After all, thousands of brilliant men (mostly men, let's be honest) go about their work with little regard to, or interest in, the 'dominant' controversies of the day. I have worked with dozens of them: they have better things to do than care about abstractions like human rights, imperialism and the shibboleth of 'representative government'.

    They might become aware of a controversy from time to time, and are well-equipped to form consistent expectations about the 'right' answer - at which point they tend to think "Well, the right answer looks like [blah] - someone will do that eventually" and return to their work.

    Together, ① and ② are almost sufficient (if only because ① tells you when the subject matter has levels of nuance that you'd better point ② at for a few hours - and then to quickly determine if there's a contribution to be made).

    By a quirk of genetics and environment, I have abundant cognitive grunt: by dint of ordeal-tolerance, it's objectively verifiable - at least, relative to a Cornell psych undergrad.

    Now my alma mater is not as illustrious as Cornell (Cornell's global #22; Monash is global #48), but my undergraduate degree required a significantly higher entry than Psych, and I finished in the 99th percentile of my graduating class (in undergrad, Honours and Masters - joint-top in the first two; outright in the second).

    And as I always point out, my major was numeracy-heavy (Economics and Econometrics, with Masters and [unfinished] PhD increasingly 'technical').

    And having done the PIAAC test, I find I'm a Level V - as expected, and where expected... inside the 99th percentile, but not 'Triple 9' (99.9th percentile) material.[1]

    I did the test because it seemed like the national-level outcomes were too dismal - although I don't hold the Mass Man in much esteem, I struggled with the idea that the average human in the Anglophone OECD was that incompetent.

    I half-expected that the OECD had pitched the test too high, perhaps to help national-level bureaucrats justify the waste of yet more tax money on 'education' budgets for the useless eaters' offspring.

    But no: it was far easier than I expected. (As an exercise I re-took it, and tried to do badly enough to achieve a Level III; that was actually quite hard, and it took me 5 attempts).

    So I ought to be safe from DKE - which is half the battle if operating outside of one's domain of direct expertise: I hate to call it 'intellectual humility', but that's almost what it amounts to.

    Epistemology is hard; empiricism is hard too. It's not for everyone: it requires literacy and numeracy that are well outside the competency range of the vast majority of people.

    Actively trying to know the world as it is, helps immensely. Being aware when you're not in your wheelhouse creates a greater hurdle before a thing becomes a fact (i.e., a thing about which knowledge is possible) as opposed to a belief (beliefs are completely unrelated to facts/knowledge - beliefs are inherently inferior and ought to be voice with uncertainty).

    Anyhow... that's the short version.

    [1] The fact that I didn't hit 99.9th percentile didn't faze me in the least - I didn't expect to get there if this was an IQ-type test (and it is). I know my place lol.

    BUT... it is CurrentYear, so...

    By the power vested in me by being part spear-chucker, and using BLM Wakanda Woke-Deduction, I can say that the test is racist against us downtrodden part-Maori.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  42. anon[635] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "How ’bout this: “Do you think that cheating or fraud in this election process is enough so that it could change the outcome?”"

    No. Because rampant voter vote is a myth. Trump stated that if he wins, it was a fair election, and if he loses, then there was massive cheating. He cannot have it both ways.

    The fact of the matter is that there has been increasing disinformation and misinformation within the past four years how voter fraud supposedly on a wide scale exists. It requires little to no evidence, but just the belief that it does occur. And it does not help that Trump talks about a third term or that he will refuse to concede, and that it is taking GOP leaders to plan a course of action in the event he follows through.

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-carl-bernstein-says-gop-senators-worried-trump-fight-vote-20201026-glq6grr7wzg6xnftvbmvk2dm5e-story.html

    Normal Americans recognize that Trump is not well.

    Replies: @anon, @Curle, @dfordoom, @Mark G.

    Because rampant voter vote is a myth

    Lol, thanks for handing us the official line of the week. I’ve personally seen an election stolen at the state and local level via rather simple rigging of selected voting machines; via a late delivery of many provisional ballots; via delayed votes from outlying areas…all the usual stuff. Sometimes the Party here gets carried away and delivers over 100% of the possible vote for a candidate, as happened in parts of Philly in 2008, but usually just enough fraudulent votes show up to carry a selected candidate to victory as the people’s choice.

    Not old news, some of this happened in 2018. Reporting it to the designated authorities is a waste of time, too. Guess why? Something something “party” something, eh?

    Normal Americans recognize that Trump is not well.

    What does a paid shill like you know about normal Americans?
    lol.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @anon

    "I’ve personally seen an election stolen at the state and local level via rather simple rigging of selected voting machines; via a late delivery of many provisional ballots; via delayed votes from outlying areas…all the usual stuff. Sometimes the Party here gets carried away and delivers over 100% of the possible vote for a candidate, as happened in parts of Philly in 2008, but usually just enough fraudulent votes show up to carry a selected candidate to victory as the people’s choice."

    LOL, any anony can make a claim on the Interwebs. Offer specific proof or retract your statement.

    "What does a paid shill like you know about normal Americans?"

    Not a paid shill, just an educated, married with children white American man who makes his own decisions about race and culture...and politics. Try to keep up.

    Replies: @anon

  43. @Corvinus
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "How ’bout this: “Do you think that cheating or fraud in this election process is enough so that it could change the outcome?”"

    No. Because rampant voter vote is a myth. Trump stated that if he wins, it was a fair election, and if he loses, then there was massive cheating. He cannot have it both ways.

    The fact of the matter is that there has been increasing disinformation and misinformation within the past four years how voter fraud supposedly on a wide scale exists. It requires little to no evidence, but just the belief that it does occur. And it does not help that Trump talks about a third term or that he will refuse to concede, and that it is taking GOP leaders to plan a course of action in the event he follows through.

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-carl-bernstein-says-gop-senators-worried-trump-fight-vote-20201026-glq6grr7wzg6xnftvbmvk2dm5e-story.html

    Normal Americans recognize that Trump is not well.

    Replies: @anon, @Curle, @dfordoom, @Mark G.

    “No. Because rampant voter vote is a myth.”

    Says a guy robotically mouthing talking points pumped into his brain by media corporations about whom he has no serious knowledge regarding their ownership structure and more importantly has no serious knowledge of those who lent them money.

    • Agree: Manfred Arcane
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Curle

    "Says a guy robotically mouthing talking points pumped into his brain by media corporations about whom he has no serious knowledge regarding their ownership structure and more importantly has no serious knowledge of those who lent them money."

    Nope. I apply the same historical methods I did throughout my academic career. You analyze the likely reliability of the information presented, look for confirming or refuting evidence, and then draw your own plausible conclusions. It's called critical thinking by way of employing one's intellectual horsepower.

    Try it sometime, you might surprise yourself with the results. The more you know...

    Replies: @Curle

  44. @anon
    @Corvinus

    Because rampant voter vote is a myth

    Lol, thanks for handing us the official line of the week. I've personally seen an election stolen at the state and local level via rather simple rigging of selected voting machines; via a late delivery of many provisional ballots; via delayed votes from outlying areas...all the usual stuff. Sometimes the Party here gets carried away and delivers over 100% of the possible vote for a candidate, as happened in parts of Philly in 2008, but usually just enough fraudulent votes show up to carry a selected candidate to victory as the people's choice.

    Not old news, some of this happened in 2018. Reporting it to the designated authorities is a waste of time, too. Guess why? Something something "party" something, eh?

    Normal Americans recognize that Trump is not well.

    What does a paid shill like you know about normal Americans?
    lol.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “I’ve personally seen an election stolen at the state and local level via rather simple rigging of selected voting machines; via a late delivery of many provisional ballots; via delayed votes from outlying areas…all the usual stuff. Sometimes the Party here gets carried away and delivers over 100% of the possible vote for a candidate, as happened in parts of Philly in 2008, but usually just enough fraudulent votes show up to carry a selected candidate to victory as the people’s choice.”

    LOL, any anony can make a claim on the Interwebs. Offer specific proof or retract your statement.

    “What does a paid shill like you know about normal Americans?”

    Not a paid shill, just an educated, married with children white American man who makes his own decisions about race and culture…and politics. Try to keep up.

    • Troll: GeneralRipper
    • Replies: @anon
    @Corvinus

    Offer specific proof or retract your statement.

    Sorry, not interested in doxxing myself. Especially for a paid shill.

    There's a lot more corruption in the US voting process than most people realize. I used to know a little old lady Republican who had much confidence in the system, until she worked a few election cycles as a poll watcher and saw just how the machine works...in one county, in one state.

    Not a paid shill, just an educated, married with children white American man who makes his own decisions about race and culture…and politics. Try to keep up.

    Your covers story keeps shifting, dude, but you do consistently trot out the DNCe line. It is obvious what you are, the only question is how much you are paid.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  45. @Curle
    @Corvinus

    “No. Because rampant voter vote is a myth.”

    Says a guy robotically mouthing talking points pumped into his brain by media corporations about whom he has no serious knowledge regarding their ownership structure and more importantly has no serious knowledge of those who lent them money.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Says a guy robotically mouthing talking points pumped into his brain by media corporations about whom he has no serious knowledge regarding their ownership structure and more importantly has no serious knowledge of those who lent them money.”

    Nope. I apply the same historical methods I did throughout my academic career. You analyze the likely reliability of the information presented, look for confirming or refuting evidence, and then draw your own plausible conclusions. It’s called critical thinking by way of employing one’s intellectual horsepower.

    Try it sometime, you might surprise yourself with the results. The more you know…

    • Replies: @Curle
    @Corvinus

    You did none of this.

    “Nope. I apply the same historical methods I did throughout my academic career. You analyze the likely reliability of the information presented, look for confirming or refuting evidence, and then draw your own plausible conclusions. It’s called critical thinking by way of employing one’s intellectual horsepower.”

    Replies: @Corvinus

  46. @Charles Pewitt
    Mr Epigone says:

    How far and for how long can trust in every major institution and process in the country fall before the country itself does? What is the hypothetical mechanism that arrests and then reverses the decline? Rhetorical, it seems. Or maybe free college for everyone–all the way through the post-graduate level–will do the trick!

    I say:

    The country has fallen to the villainy and treason of the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire a long time ago in a place far away in our memories, and the American Empire is strangling and extinguishing those White Core Americans who could recreate and continue the spirit of roaming and settling and conquering Whites from the steppes to the peninsula off the great Asian land mass called Europe to the Germanic forest clearings to America and Australia and all over and to space and the oceans.

    The use and abuse of the debt-based fiat currency medium of exchange to buy off greedy and weak and cowardly White slobs born before 1965 using asset bubbles and debt has temporarily interrupted the exchange of cultural continuum that ordinarily occurs between generations and the nasty greedy White slobs born before 1965 believe they'll play out their string with all the goodies and all the crocodile tears about how bad bad bad Whitey was and is and the young Whites in White Core America have had enough of that crud and they want to guard and protect their families and their people and their country and their nation and they recognize that the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire has used the government of the USA as a political weapon to destroy the historic American nation and to attack the European Christian ancestral core of the USA.

    The obvious decline of the American Empire must not be arrested as it were; it must be accelerated to the final dislodgement and forcible exile of the evil and treasonous JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire.

    The sonofabitches couldn't even get the federal funds rate to 3 percent from the Obama Zero Interest Rate Policy before the asset bubbles in stocks and bonds and real estate -- commercial and residential -- started to implode.

    The oncoming implosion of the Biden Asset Bubble shall destroy and dislodge the evil and treasonous JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire.

    The JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire resembles the Saxons behind their shield wall at Senlac Hill in 1066, and the proud and brave WHITE CORE AMERICANS are the Normans come to conquer and to claim by battle their rightful inheritance.

    More pretentious crap like that for thousands of words until Wednesday of November 4 or the next Wednesday after that or until the happy destruction of the evil Republican Party clears the way for the new political party called White Core America.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Just fuck OFF you overly-wordy son of a bitch.  Everyone worthwhile on this forum has you on ignore, as I do.  GO AWAY ALREADY!

    • Agree: Manfred Arcane
    • Disagree: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Mr. Rational

    THE AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Jay Fink

  47. @Corvinus
    @Curle

    "Says a guy robotically mouthing talking points pumped into his brain by media corporations about whom he has no serious knowledge regarding their ownership structure and more importantly has no serious knowledge of those who lent them money."

    Nope. I apply the same historical methods I did throughout my academic career. You analyze the likely reliability of the information presented, look for confirming or refuting evidence, and then draw your own plausible conclusions. It's called critical thinking by way of employing one's intellectual horsepower.

    Try it sometime, you might surprise yourself with the results. The more you know...

    Replies: @Curle

    You did none of this.

    “Nope. I apply the same historical methods I did throughout my academic career. You analyze the likely reliability of the information presented, look for confirming or refuting evidence, and then draw your own plausible conclusions. It’s called critical thinking by way of employing one’s intellectual horsepower.”

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Curle

    To the contrary, I have done ALL of it. Give it a try--what specifically do you disagree with in this statement? For what reasons?

    "The fact of the matter is that there has been increasing disinformation and misinformation within the past four years how voter fraud supposedly on a wide scale exists. It requires little to no evidence, but just the belief that it does occur. And it does not help that Trump talks about a third term or that he will refuse to concede, and that it is taking GOP leaders to plan a course of action in the event he follows through".

  48. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Liberty Mike


    Stalin’s maxim still holds as there is a hole wider than those created by the great wall of the 92 Cowboys offensive line between (b) and (c) as well as between (c) and (d).
     
    Perhaps so, but we used to do something to plug those holes, didn't we? If so, then is there a good reason not to return to that old practice?

    (Whenever I suggest returning to an old practice, the formidable @dfordoom tends to explain why one cannot return, but I wasn't making a reactionary point generally. I was referring to a specific procedure—whatever that was—that as far as I know used to work. The public apparently lacks confidence in election procedure now.)

    Replies: @Liberty Mike, @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    Whenever I suggest returning to an old practice, the formidable tends to explain why one cannot return, but I wasn’t making a reactionary point generally. I was referring to a specific procedure—whatever that was—that as far as I know used to work.

    I agree with you on this point. Conducting free and fair elections is trivially easy. You only need 19th century technology to do it. Third World countries routinely conduct free and fair elections.

    The real problem however isn’t the mechanics of voting. That could be solved very very easily. The real problem is that you have a political system that is corrupt all the way through. Neither side wants to change that because both sides are benefiting. Both sides have their snouts in the trough. That’s why the swamp isn’t going to get drained. Both sides like living in that swamp because it offers so many opportunities to corruptly enrich themselves. Politicians on both sides like the fact that a political career means lots and lots of lovely money, most of it obtained corruptly (either by direct corruption or indirect corruption).

    Any calls for changes to the voting system will frighten both sides – it might lead to calls to clean up the rest of the corrupt system. No more of that lovely lovely money.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  49. @Corvinus
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "How ’bout this: “Do you think that cheating or fraud in this election process is enough so that it could change the outcome?”"

    No. Because rampant voter vote is a myth. Trump stated that if he wins, it was a fair election, and if he loses, then there was massive cheating. He cannot have it both ways.

    The fact of the matter is that there has been increasing disinformation and misinformation within the past four years how voter fraud supposedly on a wide scale exists. It requires little to no evidence, but just the belief that it does occur. And it does not help that Trump talks about a third term or that he will refuse to concede, and that it is taking GOP leaders to plan a course of action in the event he follows through.

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-carl-bernstein-says-gop-senators-worried-trump-fight-vote-20201026-glq6grr7wzg6xnftvbmvk2dm5e-story.html

    Normal Americans recognize that Trump is not well.

    Replies: @anon, @Curle, @dfordoom, @Mark G.

    Trump stated that if he wins, it was a fair election, and if he loses, then there was massive cheating.

    That’s pretty much true of both sides. Whichever side wins will say that the election was totally fair and whichever side loses will accuse the other of cheating.

    Whether there is any actual vote fraud is irrelevant. In modern American politics there is no need to bother about annoying inconveniences like evidence.

    For whichever side loses the very fact that they lost will be seen as sufficient evidence that the other side must have cheated. Both sides have talked themselves into a frame of mind in which it is inconceivable that they could lose a fair election.

    This is how politics works in the Third World. Even in an extremely rich Third World country like the US (which as far as politics is concerned has been a Third World nation for quite some time).

    Whichever way the election goes there will be supporters of both sides calling for their opponents to be prosecuted and imprisoned. That is also how politics works in the Third World.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @dfordoom

    "That’s pretty much true of both sides. Whichever side wins will say that the election was totally fair and whichever side loses will accuse the other of cheating."

    You mean true of certain people from both sides. Trump has merely put into overdrive this notion that our elections is fraught with malfeasance.

    "Whether there is any actual vote fraud is irrelevant. In modern American politics there is no need to bother about annoying inconveniences like evidence."

    To the contrary, evidence is now more and ever relevant. It is just that it is "evidence" that conforms to one's worldview.

    For whichever side loses the very fact that they lost will be seen as sufficient evidence that the other side must have cheated.

    "Both sides have talked themselves into a frame of mind in which it is inconceivable that they could lose a fair election".

    Within the past two decades, it has been decidedly one sided--Republicans incessantly insist that widespread voter fraud is rampant, and that is a primary factor for why they have lost state and national elections.

    "Even in an extremely rich Third World country like the US (which as far as politics is concerned has been a Third World nation for quite some time)."

    The U.S. is a First World country by the metrics employed in determining that status.

  50. Indeed. But perhaps trust in institutions is over-rated. In places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brazil etc.etc.etc. there is pretty much zero public trust in the institutions of society. But things function – more or less – and the rich live fabulous lives in heavily guarded bubbles, so you see it’s all good.

    But free college for everyone is not a pipe dream. If you strip away all the administrative overhead and other garbage, actually providing a college level eduction to people is pretty cheap. I mean, in most industrialized nations college is either free or very nearly so. OK sure, free everything for everyone is impossible, but ‘free’ – or at least, cheap, – college for everyone, is very much not.

    • Replies: @anon
    @TG

    But free college for everyone is not a pipe dream.

    Lol, watch how many colleges and even uni's in the US implode in the next year as the Higher Ed bubble pops. SARS-2 is just the trigger.

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/students-u-colleges-drop-worsening-135612847.html

    The only higher ed schools with steady enrollment are for-profit trade schools. There will be diesel mechanics and HVAC techs in the future, but maybe not so many sociologists...

    Most people don't need to go to college, they need a good skill that makes money honestly.

    One of the few real-deal, not "on paper", millionaires I know started in STEM, dropped out of college and switched to plumbing. His business is one of the largest in the area and his trucks are distinctive.

  51. @Mr. Rational
    @Charles Pewitt

    Just fuck OFF you overly-wordy son of a bitch.  Everyone worthwhile on this forum has you on ignore, as I do.  GO AWAY ALREADY!

    Replies: @nebulafox

    THE AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    @nebulafox

    Tweet from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/645942150862016513?s=20

    , @Jay Fink
    @nebulafox

    That's the one thing he gets right. Black women are a big force in the Dem primaries. They get what they want which is always the most establishment candidate.

  52. @nebulafox
    @Mr. Rational

    THE AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Jay Fink

    Tweet from 2015:

  53. @nebulafox
    @Mr. Rational

    THE AUNT JEMIMA STRATEGY

    Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Jay Fink

    That’s the one thing he gets right. Black women are a big force in the Dem primaries. They get what they want which is always the most establishment candidate.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  54. @Curle
    @Corvinus

    You did none of this.

    “Nope. I apply the same historical methods I did throughout my academic career. You analyze the likely reliability of the information presented, look for confirming or refuting evidence, and then draw your own plausible conclusions. It’s called critical thinking by way of employing one’s intellectual horsepower.”

    Replies: @Corvinus

    To the contrary, I have done ALL of it. Give it a try–what specifically do you disagree with in this statement? For what reasons?

    “The fact of the matter is that there has been increasing disinformation and misinformation within the past four years how voter fraud supposedly on a wide scale exists. It requires little to no evidence, but just the belief that it does occur. And it does not help that Trump talks about a third term or that he will refuse to concede, and that it is taking GOP leaders to plan a course of action in the event he follows through”.

  55. @dfordoom
    @Corvinus


    Trump stated that if he wins, it was a fair election, and if he loses, then there was massive cheating.
     
    That's pretty much true of both sides. Whichever side wins will say that the election was totally fair and whichever side loses will accuse the other of cheating.

    Whether there is any actual vote fraud is irrelevant. In modern American politics there is no need to bother about annoying inconveniences like evidence.

    For whichever side loses the very fact that they lost will be seen as sufficient evidence that the other side must have cheated. Both sides have talked themselves into a frame of mind in which it is inconceivable that they could lose a fair election.

    This is how politics works in the Third World. Even in an extremely rich Third World country like the US (which as far as politics is concerned has been a Third World nation for quite some time).

    Whichever way the election goes there will be supporters of both sides calling for their opponents to be prosecuted and imprisoned. That is also how politics works in the Third World.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “That’s pretty much true of both sides. Whichever side wins will say that the election was totally fair and whichever side loses will accuse the other of cheating.”

    You mean true of certain people from both sides. Trump has merely put into overdrive this notion that our elections is fraught with malfeasance.

    “Whether there is any actual vote fraud is irrelevant. In modern American politics there is no need to bother about annoying inconveniences like evidence.”

    To the contrary, evidence is now more and ever relevant. It is just that it is “evidence” that conforms to one’s worldview.

    For whichever side loses the very fact that they lost will be seen as sufficient evidence that the other side must have cheated.

    “Both sides have talked themselves into a frame of mind in which it is inconceivable that they could lose a fair election”.

    Within the past two decades, it has been decidedly one sided–Republicans incessantly insist that widespread voter fraud is rampant, and that is a primary factor for why they have lost state and national elections.

    “Even in an extremely rich Third World country like the US (which as far as politics is concerned has been a Third World nation for quite some time).”

    The U.S. is a First World country by the metrics employed in determining that status.

  56. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @TG
    Indeed. But perhaps trust in institutions is over-rated. In places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brazil etc.etc.etc. there is pretty much zero public trust in the institutions of society. But things function - more or less - and the rich live fabulous lives in heavily guarded bubbles, so you see it's all good.

    But free college for everyone is not a pipe dream. If you strip away all the administrative overhead and other garbage, actually providing a college level eduction to people is pretty cheap. I mean, in most industrialized nations college is either free or very nearly so. OK sure, free everything for everyone is impossible, but 'free' - or at least, cheap, - college for everyone, is very much not.

    Replies: @anon

    But free college for everyone is not a pipe dream.

    Lol, watch how many colleges and even uni’s in the US implode in the next year as the Higher Ed bubble pops. SARS-2 is just the trigger.

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/students-u-colleges-drop-worsening-135612847.html

    The only higher ed schools with steady enrollment are for-profit trade schools. There will be diesel mechanics and HVAC techs in the future, but maybe not so many sociologists…

    Most people don’t need to go to college, they need a good skill that makes money honestly.

    One of the few real-deal, not “on paper”, millionaires I know started in STEM, dropped out of college and switched to plumbing. His business is one of the largest in the area and his trucks are distinctive.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  57. anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    @anon

    "I’ve personally seen an election stolen at the state and local level via rather simple rigging of selected voting machines; via a late delivery of many provisional ballots; via delayed votes from outlying areas…all the usual stuff. Sometimes the Party here gets carried away and delivers over 100% of the possible vote for a candidate, as happened in parts of Philly in 2008, but usually just enough fraudulent votes show up to carry a selected candidate to victory as the people’s choice."

    LOL, any anony can make a claim on the Interwebs. Offer specific proof or retract your statement.

    "What does a paid shill like you know about normal Americans?"

    Not a paid shill, just an educated, married with children white American man who makes his own decisions about race and culture...and politics. Try to keep up.

    Replies: @anon

    Offer specific proof or retract your statement.

    Sorry, not interested in doxxing myself. Especially for a paid shill.

    There’s a lot more corruption in the US voting process than most people realize. I used to know a little old lady Republican who had much confidence in the system, until she worked a few election cycles as a poll watcher and saw just how the machine works…in one county, in one state.

    Not a paid shill, just an educated, married with children white American man who makes his own decisions about race and culture…and politics. Try to keep up.

    Your covers story keeps shifting, dude, but you do consistently trot out the DNCe line. It is obvious what you are, the only question is how much you are paid.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @anon

    "Sorry, not interested in doxxing myself. Especially for a paid shill."

    So we can safely conclude that you are other than telling the truth when you allegedly witnessed voter fraud.

    "Your covers story keeps shifting, dude..."

    To the contrary, I remain steadfast in pursuit of truth and relevance. But your insistence that I get paid as a shill is tiresome. Ad hominem is always a fallacy, and your liberal use of it only demonstrates you losing the argument, or not having an argument at all. Invective is your norm.

    Replies: @anon

  58. @anon
    @Corvinus

    Offer specific proof or retract your statement.

    Sorry, not interested in doxxing myself. Especially for a paid shill.

    There's a lot more corruption in the US voting process than most people realize. I used to know a little old lady Republican who had much confidence in the system, until she worked a few election cycles as a poll watcher and saw just how the machine works...in one county, in one state.

    Not a paid shill, just an educated, married with children white American man who makes his own decisions about race and culture…and politics. Try to keep up.

    Your covers story keeps shifting, dude, but you do consistently trot out the DNCe line. It is obvious what you are, the only question is how much you are paid.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Sorry, not interested in doxxing myself. Especially for a paid shill.”

    So we can safely conclude that you are other than telling the truth when you allegedly witnessed voter fraud.

    “Your covers story keeps shifting, dude…”

    To the contrary, I remain steadfast in pursuit of truth and relevance. But your insistence that I get paid as a shill is tiresome. Ad hominem is always a fallacy, and your liberal use of it only demonstrates you losing the argument, or not having an argument at all. Invective is your norm.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Corvinus

    So we can safely conclude that you are other than telling the truth when you allegedly witnessed voter fraud.

    Post your name, cell phone number and physical address right here, then maybe we can talk.

    “Your covers story keeps shifting, dude…”

    To the contrary, I remain steadfast in pursuit of truth and relevance.

    Lol @ a liar claiming to pursue the truth. Meanwhile, your cover story keeps shifting. Bad tradecraft, you're supposed to be consistent in that.

    But your insistence that I get paid as a shill is tiresome.

    My, my. Touchy, are we? Must be a bit of a strain to have to push so many distractions through as comments in the face of growing revelations about Creepy Joe Biden, is that the problem? I can't buy that you shill for the fun of it, so "paid shill" it is.

    Ad hominem is always a fallacy,

    Where have I used that fallacy, liar?

    Now, run along and get your latest Narrative points. Because the Biden situation is moving fast enough you can't rely only on CNN, now can you?

    Replies: @Corvinus

  59. Shout out to Hispanics for leading in cynicism in this question. Maybe an artifact of more obviously stolen elections south of the Rio Grande?

  60. @Corvinus
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "How ’bout this: “Do you think that cheating or fraud in this election process is enough so that it could change the outcome?”"

    No. Because rampant voter vote is a myth. Trump stated that if he wins, it was a fair election, and if he loses, then there was massive cheating. He cannot have it both ways.

    The fact of the matter is that there has been increasing disinformation and misinformation within the past four years how voter fraud supposedly on a wide scale exists. It requires little to no evidence, but just the belief that it does occur. And it does not help that Trump talks about a third term or that he will refuse to concede, and that it is taking GOP leaders to plan a course of action in the event he follows through.

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-carl-bernstein-says-gop-senators-worried-trump-fight-vote-20201026-glq6grr7wzg6xnftvbmvk2dm5e-story.html

    Normal Americans recognize that Trump is not well.

    Replies: @anon, @Curle, @dfordoom, @Mark G.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Mark G.

    Regarding the ZeroHedge article...

    https://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/a-bald-faced-lie-candidates-implicated-in-voter-fraud-allegations-deny-claims

    Moreover, I wouldn't be relying on James O'Keefe as a source.

    https://www.eipartnership.net/rapid-response/project-veritas-ballotharvesting

    He is well known for coordinating disinformation campaigns--he "pre-seeds" the ground and then simultaneously hits from a number of different accounts at once. Recall that he and a couple of colleagues were arrested in the Hale Boggs Federal Complex in New Orleans in January 2010 and charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony.

    Regarding the Brietbart article, the NYT explained how and why their stories were other than accurate.

    https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf

    https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37365484/Benkler-etal-Mail-in-Voter-Fraud-Anatomy-of-a-Disinformation-Campaign.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    Regarding the Gateway Pundit article, the flash drives are encrypted to prevent tampering, and specifically matched with individual voting machines. Upon programming, these encryption keys ‘marry’ the USB with the machine, and if placed in another machine, it will cause an error and the machine will not work. And just because there was a burglary involving these machines, that does not automatically mean that voter fraud will take place.

    Regarding the Armstrong Economics post...

    "So far, a total of 353 of the 3,141 counties in America located in 29 of the nation’s 50 states already have 1.8 million MORE registered voters than residents, according to an analysis by Judicial Watch."

    Such estimates do not encompass the entire U.S., are based on questionable methodologies, and may include voters who are listed on state rolls as "inactive". The consideration of inactive voters is a key issue here. Judicial Watch maintains registrations listed on state rolls as “inactive” are “vulnerable to abuse” by “voters who plan to fraudulently double-vote in two different jurisdictions on the same election day,” or by third parties “because a voter who has moved to a different state is unlikely to monitor the use of or communications concerning an old registration". However, California’s National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) regulations state that although inactive voters remain on the rolls as registered voters who are eligible to vote, they do not receive “mailed election materials” (including mail-in ballots) and must “confirm residency at the polling place”.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  61. @Corvinus
    @Kratoklastes

    "Disagree; they are unwittingly placed in filter bubbles."

    Patently false. White people especially are cognizant of their decision making, and make choices as to what they will and will not process.

    "They don’t understand the ramifications of having a ‘tailored’ information network, when the tailor’s objective is to maximise eyeballs on advertisements."

    You are essentially saying white people generally lack agency, that they are easily duped and manipulated.

    "Two people who differ only in political opinion, are likely to get non-intersecting political content in ‘feeds’ from the data-curation platforms that come pre-installed on their phones. When it comes to a matter of controversy, there is a very good chance that they never get to see any data that represents the ‘other side’ (except perhaps in caricature)."

    Not pre-installed, but far more likely that people, based on their online activity and behavior, will activate algorithms that send them supposedly desirable content. I would say that some people fall prey to that one-sidedness, but mostly people seek additional information to confirm or refute what they read or heard. However, there is a subset of people who are increasingly relying on the Fake News mantra, and are lazily making assumptions and drawing conclusions based on confirmation biases. As a result, there is dearth of intellectual curiosity and self-reflection.

    "They don’t know that, and are incapable of working it out by brute force, so there is no incentive for them to install an alternative aggregator (assuming they were able to identify a neutral aggregator, which they aren’t)."

    According to Who/Whom?

    "Face it: the vast mass of humanity do not have the cognitive machinery to work out that they’re only getting half the story – especially for stories that they consider important (or that they are told they ought to consider important)."

    Are you suggesting that high IQ white people lack the requisite intellectual horsepower to ponder and ruminate? Really?

    Furthermore, it seems you are inferring that you are not part of this "mass humanity". OK, so how do YOU, compared to others, possess this "cognitive machinery"?

    "Furthermore, they cannot evaluate data that is represented; models that are used; the coherence of rhetorical content; or the plausibility of the conclusions."

    You mean those who are a slave to confirmation bias and seek ideas/data from echo chambers.

    "(Having moderators who delete dissenting content amplifies this effect – something iSteve would do well to note, given his weird habit of deleting responses to A123, JackD, Lot and other hasbara: there’s something amiss there)."

    And you know this specifically how?

    "it’s not the masses’ fault that their lack of processing power is exploited by assholes like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg..."

    But you are other than exploited. OK, what skill set do you employ compared to your fellow white brethren? Why are you not assisting them from not being bamboozled?

    Replies: @Kratoklastes, @Kratoklastes

    Oddly, I find I cannot post a comprehensive reply to your comment above. What appears below has been pared down to remove links to published research and the PIAAC repository. Hopefully it was the presence of links that was the issue.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Linkless, Reference-less Text ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Your word-salad does a disservice to the data from well-conducted, large-sample research spanning 3 decades. It shows that you’re hypothesising about groupwise cognitive competency, without bothering to test your hypotheses against readily-available evidence.

    That’s the opposite of science: yours is a belief system (I always use the word ‘belief‘ pejoratively).

    It is absolutely, overwhelmingly clear – from PIAAC, to quote just one methodologically-transparent source – that adults below the 90th cognitive/competency percentile do not routinely possess the skills required to parse narratives that include rhetorical/persuasive content.

    The 90th percentile lines up (roughly) with an IQ of 120 – a run-of-the-mill college graduate (with virtually no constraint on the quality of the college).

    Possessing those skills is the definition of PIAAC ‘Level IV’… and in the US the 90th percentile is barely above the lower bound of Level IV.

    The lower bound for Level IV is 325 ; the 90th percentile score in the US is 330.

    The median for Level IV is 348, which is higher than the 95th percentile US score of 330.

    The lower bound for Level V is 375: the proportion of US adults who achieve Level V is significantly less than 1% (as a result, Level V numbers are not reported separately any more).

    The definition:

    Level IV:

    can perform multiple-step operations to integrate, interpret, or synthesise information from complex or lengthy continuous, non-continuous, mixed, or multiple-type texts that involve conditional and/or competing information. They can make complex inferences and appropriately apply background knowledge as well as interpret or evaluate subtle truth claims or arguments.

    Frankly, that description strikes me as inadequate. In reality Level V is required:

    …perform tasks that involve searching for and integrating information across multiple, dense texts; constructing syntheses of similar and contrasting ideas or points of view, or evaluating evidence and arguments. They can apply and evaluate logical and conceptual models, and evaluate the reliability of evidentiary sources and select key information. They are aware of subtle, rhetorical cues and are able to make high-level inferences or use specialised background knowledge.

    I have posted the PIAAC main results time and time and time again: if you haven’t seen them, I’ve appended them elsewhere in this thread.

    It would pay to read them reasonably closely, even though it’s a few hundred pages – there are a lot of tables, charts etc, so there’s not that much text. Plus, you’ve had since 2013 to become familiar with them, but you haven’t bothered to.

    Doing so really ought to disabuse you of the naïve idea that the Mass Man is working useful cognitive machinery.

    The Mass Man does not reach PIAAC ‘Level III’, which is roughly in line with a moderately dim grade 9 student. It used to be defined as the

    “minimum required for individuals to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work in the emerging knowledge-based economy”

    That definition was altered under pressure from the US, because the media US adult fails to achieve Level III.

    What is really clear.

    When you think of the Mass Man (say, within σ of the mean), your mental image is an idealised individual who carefully evaluates competing narratives, and who actively seeks sources of information that run against his prior or preferences.

    You’ve describe a ‘Level IV’ (actually, probably a ‘Level V’ – which is >99th percentile).

    That is not a representative person. If it were representative, the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) wouldn’t exist.

    It’s not even representative at genuinely élite (+2σ) IQs.

    Bear in mind that Kruger and Dunning found their eponymous effect in the bottom 75% of a class of Cornell psych undergraduates.

    Now Cornell undergraduates are ~99th percentile IQ at the median (entry SAT: 1480 at the median – which lines up with an IQ of 143 – the 99.85th percentile). The bottom quartile SAT for Cornell acceptance was 1420 (roughly an IQ of 139).

    As it happens I think the distributions in theIQ-SAT table are misaligned – my prior is that a 1440 lines up with an IQ in the mid-130s – but I take the table as read for present purposes.

    Now, let’s assume Cornell Psych undergrads are 0.5σ stupider than the Cornell average, which would give them a mean IQ of 136 (99.18th percentile) and a bottom quartile IQ of 132.

    75% of that group of objectively-élite minds was found to fall victim to Dunning-Kruger’s metacognitive ‘double curse’ – and yet in your mind [sic] the vast seething mass of dumbfounded dipshits are out there parsing compex narratives like a fucking boss.

    No sale. Just no.

    You’re over-estimating humanity – you’re even over-estimating humanity’s cognitive élite.

    The fact that advertising isn’t an obvious 100% failure indicates that a shitload of people can’t parse a narrative. When you look at the data you’ve been ignoring for at least half a decade, you’ll see they can’t parse for shit. Of which, more below (and even more in my responses to your questions, which I’ve put in a reply by themselves).

    Recalibrate your mental model of the cognitive landscape. Understand that for the most part the bottom 6 deciles do not know or think (which is the same thing as trying to know)- they believe, which is a very different thing.

    As I’ve said before: this does not make them less-than-fully imbued with rights. It doesn’t make them ‘stupid’, either: it’s what an unimproved human mind does.

    Mass Man as I’ve characterised him is not inconsistent with ‘rationality’ in the economic context, either: ‘rationality’ implies that people make what they expect to be the best decision.

    To form their expectations they have to amass information; they do so until the expected cost exceeds the expected benefit as an input into the process by which they form expectations.

    Knowledge about the benefits of information is expensive: it requires a great deal of determined study, even for very bright people. There is no guarantee that the non-bright would understand the merits, so it’s rational for them not to bother. It is rational for the cognitively weak to remain ignorant, and to believe that authority-based filters are the same as being able to think properly.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Kratoklastes

    Fuck, man.  This is COTW material if I ever saw any.

    , @Corvinus
    @Kratoklastes

    Cognitive elitist, I bear witness to. The fact of the matter is that the world does not rely on test scores to determine intellectual acumen. Rather, it is the decision making ability of (white) men and women, whether it be in their fields of study or when bantering with their friends about the latest, who have routinely demonstrated the capacity to sift through data, notice patterns, make inferences, and create solutions.

    "Understand that for the most part the bottom 6 deciles do not know or think (which is the same thing as trying to know)- they believe, which is a very different thing."

    They believe as a result of them knowing what they learned, and thinking about how to improve upon what they know.

    "and yet in your mind [sic] the vast seething mass of dumbfounded dipshits are out there parsing compex narratives like a fucking boss".

    I never made that claim. The fact of the matter is that a great of (white) people have the skills to take in information from a wide range of sources, make sense of that information, and draw conclusions based on that data. Now, the level of skill, accuracy, and detail involved, as well as the complexity of the task, is an entirely different matter.

    "There is no guarantee that the non-bright would understand the merits, so it’s rational for them not to bother."

    To the contrary, the human race, especially white people, have shown repeatedly that their efforts to break down concepts into manageable chunks, as well as to teach critical thinking strategies, has led to significant progress in a wide range of areas.

    "It is rational for the cognitively weak to remain ignorant, and to believe that authority-based filters are the same as being able to think properly."

    It is other than rational for this group of people to remain ignorant, lest they be taken advantage of by their intellectual betters, as you seemingly claim to be. Be mindful we all filter through information using authority-based sources, and through our experiences, are able to sort out which ideas are relevant and which ideas need further clarification.

    "You’re over-estimating humanity – you’re even over-estimating humanity’s cognitive élite."

    You significantly underestimate the cognitive abilities of people who you deem to be cognitively unfit.

    Pray tell, what makes YOU a member of the cognitively elite? Must we whites now bow down to Zog?

  62. @Corvinus
    @Kratoklastes

    "Disagree; they are unwittingly placed in filter bubbles."

    Patently false. White people especially are cognizant of their decision making, and make choices as to what they will and will not process.

    "They don’t understand the ramifications of having a ‘tailored’ information network, when the tailor’s objective is to maximise eyeballs on advertisements."

    You are essentially saying white people generally lack agency, that they are easily duped and manipulated.

    "Two people who differ only in political opinion, are likely to get non-intersecting political content in ‘feeds’ from the data-curation platforms that come pre-installed on their phones. When it comes to a matter of controversy, there is a very good chance that they never get to see any data that represents the ‘other side’ (except perhaps in caricature)."

    Not pre-installed, but far more likely that people, based on their online activity and behavior, will activate algorithms that send them supposedly desirable content. I would say that some people fall prey to that one-sidedness, but mostly people seek additional information to confirm or refute what they read or heard. However, there is a subset of people who are increasingly relying on the Fake News mantra, and are lazily making assumptions and drawing conclusions based on confirmation biases. As a result, there is dearth of intellectual curiosity and self-reflection.

    "They don’t know that, and are incapable of working it out by brute force, so there is no incentive for them to install an alternative aggregator (assuming they were able to identify a neutral aggregator, which they aren’t)."

    According to Who/Whom?

    "Face it: the vast mass of humanity do not have the cognitive machinery to work out that they’re only getting half the story – especially for stories that they consider important (or that they are told they ought to consider important)."

    Are you suggesting that high IQ white people lack the requisite intellectual horsepower to ponder and ruminate? Really?

    Furthermore, it seems you are inferring that you are not part of this "mass humanity". OK, so how do YOU, compared to others, possess this "cognitive machinery"?

    "Furthermore, they cannot evaluate data that is represented; models that are used; the coherence of rhetorical content; or the plausibility of the conclusions."

    You mean those who are a slave to confirmation bias and seek ideas/data from echo chambers.

    "(Having moderators who delete dissenting content amplifies this effect – something iSteve would do well to note, given his weird habit of deleting responses to A123, JackD, Lot and other hasbara: there’s something amiss there)."

    And you know this specifically how?

    "it’s not the masses’ fault that their lack of processing power is exploited by assholes like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg..."

    But you are other than exploited. OK, what skill set do you employ compared to your fellow white brethren? Why are you not assisting them from not being bamboozled?

    Replies: @Kratoklastes, @Kratoklastes

    As to your questions… in reverse order:

    [I] know [iSteve runs interference for the hasbarats] specifically how?

    To clarify: I don’t know. I have inferred; inferences have uncertainty, knowledge doesn’t.

    The inference: a group of us who interact AFU (Away From Unz) has jointly noticed that at some point in controversies involving Zionist pilpul, responses to A123, Lot and JackD will be allowed through if and only if they make the anti-Zionist side look like low-information antisemitic rants.

    In other words, the field is cleared, leaving the impression that thoughtful antiZionists have walked away from the argument (which is interpreted as “the hasbarats won the field“).

    Perhaps those three are regular contributors to a tip-jar, or perhaps iSteve is scared of being #MeJew‘d; maybe he’s insufficiently engaged in the issue, and sees shutting down the argument as sensible to improve the flow – it’s just odd that it happens at the same point every.single.time (of which we are aware).

    Whatever is the driver, it’s just seems clear that it happens consistently in those threads and almost no others.

    I had thought it was just my frequent and lusty use of profanity: it didn’t bother me because I get entertainment just from writing stuff – this forum doesn’t matter enough to self-impose a profanity filter in a bid to get past the wowsers.

    I had no way of knowing who else’s material was/is being ditched in arguments with the aforementioned, or the point at which the debated was ended: then I find it’s happened to several others of like mind, who do not use expletives at all. It’ll all be collated and put into a nice little post elsewhere.

    ~

    Why [am I] not assisting [the masses] from not being bamboozled?

    It’s not my job. I assist people in my kinship and friendship groups, where possible: very occasionally I’ll waste some clock cycles on randos (e.g., the Unz audience) so long as it doesn’t interrupt something important (like having a shit).

    I owe no debt to the seething mass of humanity – they get in my way, they eat of my substance, and they take up space that would be better dedicated to forests, open range, and attractive arrangements of edible herbs and berries. (I am 100% in favour of rapid global depopulation: I would prefer that it happened as a result of voluntary reproductive decisions, but whatever)

    ~

    What skill set do you employ compared to your fellow white brethren??

    I have no fraternal relationship – actual or imaginary – with ‘white people’. My genetic brothers aren’t white; my Masonic brethren aren’t either.

    However the following is my shortlist:
    ① obsessive awareness regarding the information landscape;
    ② the cognitive grunt to process good data.

    Taking each in turn:

    Obsessive awareness

    This means intense, ongoing, active awareness of a bunch of things – including
     • DKE and its ramifications even for élite minds;
     • the difference between knowledge and belief;
     • how belief networks work and how they can get biased;
     • how propaganda works and how it is used and how to spot it;
     • how history has unfolded, and the role of belief biases and propaganda;
        and a bunch of other things, mostly related to technique in quantitative analysis.

    Things that, taken as a set, are understood by a vanishingly small slice of humanity, and actively practised by an even smaller slice. I have spent enough hours focused on this stuff to satisfy Malcolm Gladwell’s fuckwitted trope, especially given the force multiplier that cognitive superiority entails.

    Awareness of those things would be roughly enough if – and only if – a person was a PIAAC Level V (i.e., inside the top 1% by competency).

    Which brings us to an obvious difference between me and the white race [IQ~(100,15) on a good day]…

    ②Cognitive grunt

    Elite cognition is not enough without ① – as Kruger and Dunning made clear 20 years ago – but it is necessary.

    After all, thousands of brilliant men (mostly men, let’s be honest) go about their work with little regard to, or interest in, the ‘dominant’ controversies of the day. I have worked with dozens of them: they have better things to do than care about abstractions like human rights, imperialism and the shibboleth of ‘representative government’.

    They might become aware of a controversy from time to time, and are well-equipped to form consistent expectations about the ‘right’ answer – at which point they tend to think “Well, the right answer looks like [blah] – someone will do that eventually” and return to their work.

    Together, ① and ② are almost sufficient (if only because ① tells you when the subject matter has levels of nuance that you’d better point ② at for a few hours – and then to quickly determine if there’s a contribution to be made).

    By a quirk of genetics and environment, I have abundant cognitive grunt: by dint of ordeal-tolerance, it’s objectively verifiable – at least, relative to a Cornell psych undergrad.

    Now my alma mater is not as illustrious as Cornell (Cornell’s global #22; Monash is global #48), but my undergraduate degree required a significantly higher entry than Psych, and I finished in the 99th percentile of my graduating class (in undergrad, Honours and Masters – joint-top in the first two; outright in the second).

    And as I always point out, my major was numeracy-heavy (Economics and Econometrics, with Masters and [unfinished] PhD increasingly ‘technical’).

    And having done the PIAAC test, I find I’m a Level V – as expected, and where expected… inside the 99th percentile, but not ‘Triple 9‘ (99.9th percentile) material.[1]

    I did the test because it seemed like the national-level outcomes were too dismal – although I don’t hold the Mass Man in much esteem, I struggled with the idea that the average human in the Anglophone OECD was that incompetent.

    I half-expected that the OECD had pitched the test too high, perhaps to help national-level bureaucrats justify the waste of yet more tax money on ‘education’ budgets for the useless eaters’ offspring.

    But no: it was far easier than I expected. (As an exercise I re-took it, and tried to do badly enough to achieve a Level III; that was actually quite hard, and it took me 5 attempts).

    So I ought to be safe from DKE – which is half the battle if operating outside of one’s domain of direct expertise: I hate to call it ‘intellectual humility’, but that’s almost what it amounts to.

    Epistemology is hard; empiricism is hard too. It’s not for everyone: it requires literacy and numeracy that are well outside the competency range of the vast majority of people.

    Actively trying to know the world as it is, helps immensely. Being aware when you’re not in your wheelhouse creates a greater hurdle before a thing becomes a fact (i.e., a thing about which knowledge is possible) as opposed to a belief (beliefs are completely unrelated to facts/knowledge – beliefs are inherently inferior and ought to be voice with uncertainty).

    Anyhow… that’s the short version.

    [1] The fact that I didn’t hit 99.9th percentile didn’t faze me in the least – I didn’t expect to get there if this was an IQ-type test (and it is). I know my place lol.

    BUT… it is CurrentYear, so…

    By the power vested in me by being part spear-chucker, and using BLM Wakanda Woke-Deduction, I can say that the test is racist against us downtrodden part-Maori.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Kratoklastes

    "[I] know [iSteve runs interference for the hasbarats] specifically how?"

    I never asked that question. Rather, you responded to your own inquiry.

    "It’s not my job..."

    Wonderful that you are shirking your responsibility. The fact of the matter is it our duty to spread the word to everyone how the Orcs are taking over the Shire.

    "I am 100% in favour of rapid global depopulation..."

    Indeed, you are part of the 1 percent who holds to this belief.

    "Things that, taken as a set, are understood by a vanishingly small slice of humanity, and actively practised by an even smaller slice."

    Perhaps we are understanding matters in our world quite well in a way that you find odd, but are nonetheless within the norm.

    "After all, thousands of brilliant men (mostly men, let’s be honest) go about their work with little regard to, or interest in, the ‘dominant’ controversies of the day."

    And thousands of men go about their work with tremendous regard to, and interest, the dominant controversies of the day, desiring to seek solutions and compromises. It's who we are. Well, maybe not you.

    "Actively trying to know the world as it is, helps immensely. Being aware when you’re not in your wheelhouse creates a greater hurdle before a thing becomes a fact (i.e., a thing about which knowledge is possible) as opposed to a belief (beliefs are completely unrelated to facts/knowledge – beliefs are inherently inferior and ought to be voice with uncertainty)."

    The masses everyday fit that description--we are aware of the world, seek to understand it, in ways you find quaint, but nonetheless are well within our mental framework and skill set.

  63. @Kratoklastes
    @Corvinus

    Oddly, I find I cannot post a comprehensive reply to your comment above. What appears below has been pared down to remove links to published research and the PIAAC repository. Hopefully it was the presence of links that was the issue.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Linkless, Reference-less Text ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Your word-salad does a disservice to the data from well-conducted, large-sample research spanning 3 decades. It shows that you're hypothesising about groupwise cognitive competency, without bothering to test your hypotheses against readily-available evidence.

    That's the opposite of science: yours is a belief system (I always use the word 'belief' pejoratively).

    It is absolutely, overwhelmingly clear - from PIAAC, to quote just one methodologically-transparent source - that adults below the 90th cognitive/competency percentile do not routinely possess the skills required to parse narratives that include rhetorical/persuasive content.

    The 90th percentile lines up (roughly) with an IQ of 120 - a run-of-the-mill college graduate (with virtually no constraint on the quality of the college).

    Possessing those skills is the definition of PIAAC 'Level IV'... and in the US the 90th percentile is barely above the lower bound of Level IV.

    The lower bound for Level IV is 325 ; the 90th percentile score in the US is 330.

    The median for Level IV is 348, which is higher than the 95th percentile US score of 330.

    The lower bound for Level V is 375: the proportion of US adults who achieve Level V is significantly less than 1% (as a result, Level V numbers are not reported separately any more).

    The definition:


    Level IV:

    can perform multiple-step operations to integrate, interpret, or synthesise information from complex or lengthy continuous, non-continuous, mixed, or multiple-type texts that involve conditional and/or competing information. They can make complex inferences and appropriately apply background knowledge as well as interpret or evaluate subtle truth claims or arguments.
     
    Frankly, that description strikes me as inadequate. In reality Level V is required:

    ...perform tasks that involve searching for and integrating information across multiple, dense texts; constructing syntheses of similar and contrasting ideas or points of view, or evaluating evidence and arguments. They can apply and evaluate logical and conceptual models, and evaluate the reliability of evidentiary sources and select key information. They are aware of subtle, rhetorical cues and are able to make high-level inferences or use specialised background knowledge.
     
    I have posted the PIAAC main results time and time and time again: if you haven't seen them, I've appended them elsewhere in this thread.

    It would pay to read them reasonably closely, even though it's a few hundred pages - there are a lot of tables, charts etc, so there's not that much text. Plus, you've had since 2013 to become familiar with them, but you haven't bothered to.

    Doing so really ought to disabuse you of the naïve idea that the Mass Man is working useful cognitive machinery.

    The Mass Man does not reach PIAAC 'Level III', which is roughly in line with a moderately dim grade 9 student. It used to be defined as the

    "minimum required for individuals to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work in the emerging knowledge-based economy"
     
    That definition was altered under pressure from the US, because the media US adult fails to achieve Level III.

    What is really clear.

    When you think of the Mass Man (say, within σ of the mean), your mental image is an idealised individual who carefully evaluates competing narratives, and who actively seeks sources of information that run against his prior or preferences.

    You've describe a 'Level IV' (actually, probably a 'Level V' - which is >99th percentile).

    That is not a representative person. If it were representative, the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) wouldn't exist.

    It's not even representative at genuinely élite (+2σ) IQs.

    Bear in mind that Kruger and Dunning found their eponymous effect in the bottom 75% of a class of Cornell psych undergraduates.

    Now Cornell undergraduates are ~99th percentile IQ at the median (entry SAT: 1480 at the median - which lines up with an IQ of 143 - the 99.85th percentile). The bottom quartile SAT for Cornell acceptance was 1420 (roughly an IQ of 139).

    As it happens I think the distributions in theIQ-SAT table are misaligned - my prior is that a 1440 lines up with an IQ in the mid-130s - but I take the table as read for present purposes.

    Now, let's assume Cornell Psych undergrads are 0.5σ stupider than the Cornell average, which would give them a mean IQ of 136 (99.18th percentile) and a bottom quartile IQ of 132.

    75% of that group of objectively-élite minds was found to fall victim to Dunning-Kruger's metacognitive 'double curse' - and yet in your mind [sic] the vast seething mass of dumbfounded dipshits are out there parsing compex narratives like a fucking boss.

    No sale. Just no.

    You're over-estimating humanity - you're even over-estimating humanity's cognitive élite.

    The fact that advertising isn't an obvious 100% failure indicates that a shitload of people can't parse a narrative. When you look at the data you've been ignoring for at least half a decade, you'll see they can't parse for shit. Of which, more below (and even more in my responses to your questions, which I've put in a reply by themselves).

    Recalibrate your mental model of the cognitive landscape. Understand that for the most part the bottom 6 deciles do not know or think (which is the same thing as trying to know)- they believe, which is a very different thing.

    As I've said before: this does not make them less-than-fully imbued with rights. It doesn't make them 'stupid', either: it's what an unimproved human mind does.

    Mass Man as I've characterised him is not inconsistent with 'rationality' in the economic context, either: 'rationality' implies that people make what they expect to be the best decision.

    To form their expectations they have to amass information; they do so until the expected cost exceeds the expected benefit as an input into the process by which they form expectations.

    Knowledge about the benefits of information is expensive: it requires a great deal of determined study, even for very bright people. There is no guarantee that the non-bright would understand the merits, so it's rational for them not to bother. It is rational for the cognitively weak to remain ignorant, and to believe that authority-based filters are the same as being able to think properly.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Corvinus

    Fuck, man.  This is COTW material if I ever saw any.

  64. @Kratoklastes
    @Corvinus

    Oddly, I find I cannot post a comprehensive reply to your comment above. What appears below has been pared down to remove links to published research and the PIAAC repository. Hopefully it was the presence of links that was the issue.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Linkless, Reference-less Text ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Your word-salad does a disservice to the data from well-conducted, large-sample research spanning 3 decades. It shows that you're hypothesising about groupwise cognitive competency, without bothering to test your hypotheses against readily-available evidence.

    That's the opposite of science: yours is a belief system (I always use the word 'belief' pejoratively).

    It is absolutely, overwhelmingly clear - from PIAAC, to quote just one methodologically-transparent source - that adults below the 90th cognitive/competency percentile do not routinely possess the skills required to parse narratives that include rhetorical/persuasive content.

    The 90th percentile lines up (roughly) with an IQ of 120 - a run-of-the-mill college graduate (with virtually no constraint on the quality of the college).

    Possessing those skills is the definition of PIAAC 'Level IV'... and in the US the 90th percentile is barely above the lower bound of Level IV.

    The lower bound for Level IV is 325 ; the 90th percentile score in the US is 330.

    The median for Level IV is 348, which is higher than the 95th percentile US score of 330.

    The lower bound for Level V is 375: the proportion of US adults who achieve Level V is significantly less than 1% (as a result, Level V numbers are not reported separately any more).

    The definition:


    Level IV:

    can perform multiple-step operations to integrate, interpret, or synthesise information from complex or lengthy continuous, non-continuous, mixed, or multiple-type texts that involve conditional and/or competing information. They can make complex inferences and appropriately apply background knowledge as well as interpret or evaluate subtle truth claims or arguments.
     
    Frankly, that description strikes me as inadequate. In reality Level V is required:

    ...perform tasks that involve searching for and integrating information across multiple, dense texts; constructing syntheses of similar and contrasting ideas or points of view, or evaluating evidence and arguments. They can apply and evaluate logical and conceptual models, and evaluate the reliability of evidentiary sources and select key information. They are aware of subtle, rhetorical cues and are able to make high-level inferences or use specialised background knowledge.
     
    I have posted the PIAAC main results time and time and time again: if you haven't seen them, I've appended them elsewhere in this thread.

    It would pay to read them reasonably closely, even though it's a few hundred pages - there are a lot of tables, charts etc, so there's not that much text. Plus, you've had since 2013 to become familiar with them, but you haven't bothered to.

    Doing so really ought to disabuse you of the naïve idea that the Mass Man is working useful cognitive machinery.

    The Mass Man does not reach PIAAC 'Level III', which is roughly in line with a moderately dim grade 9 student. It used to be defined as the

    "minimum required for individuals to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work in the emerging knowledge-based economy"
     
    That definition was altered under pressure from the US, because the media US adult fails to achieve Level III.

    What is really clear.

    When you think of the Mass Man (say, within σ of the mean), your mental image is an idealised individual who carefully evaluates competing narratives, and who actively seeks sources of information that run against his prior or preferences.

    You've describe a 'Level IV' (actually, probably a 'Level V' - which is >99th percentile).

    That is not a representative person. If it were representative, the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) wouldn't exist.

    It's not even representative at genuinely élite (+2σ) IQs.

    Bear in mind that Kruger and Dunning found their eponymous effect in the bottom 75% of a class of Cornell psych undergraduates.

    Now Cornell undergraduates are ~99th percentile IQ at the median (entry SAT: 1480 at the median - which lines up with an IQ of 143 - the 99.85th percentile). The bottom quartile SAT for Cornell acceptance was 1420 (roughly an IQ of 139).

    As it happens I think the distributions in theIQ-SAT table are misaligned - my prior is that a 1440 lines up with an IQ in the mid-130s - but I take the table as read for present purposes.

    Now, let's assume Cornell Psych undergrads are 0.5σ stupider than the Cornell average, which would give them a mean IQ of 136 (99.18th percentile) and a bottom quartile IQ of 132.

    75% of that group of objectively-élite minds was found to fall victim to Dunning-Kruger's metacognitive 'double curse' - and yet in your mind [sic] the vast seething mass of dumbfounded dipshits are out there parsing compex narratives like a fucking boss.

    No sale. Just no.

    You're over-estimating humanity - you're even over-estimating humanity's cognitive élite.

    The fact that advertising isn't an obvious 100% failure indicates that a shitload of people can't parse a narrative. When you look at the data you've been ignoring for at least half a decade, you'll see they can't parse for shit. Of which, more below (and even more in my responses to your questions, which I've put in a reply by themselves).

    Recalibrate your mental model of the cognitive landscape. Understand that for the most part the bottom 6 deciles do not know or think (which is the same thing as trying to know)- they believe, which is a very different thing.

    As I've said before: this does not make them less-than-fully imbued with rights. It doesn't make them 'stupid', either: it's what an unimproved human mind does.

    Mass Man as I've characterised him is not inconsistent with 'rationality' in the economic context, either: 'rationality' implies that people make what they expect to be the best decision.

    To form their expectations they have to amass information; they do so until the expected cost exceeds the expected benefit as an input into the process by which they form expectations.

    Knowledge about the benefits of information is expensive: it requires a great deal of determined study, even for very bright people. There is no guarantee that the non-bright would understand the merits, so it's rational for them not to bother. It is rational for the cognitively weak to remain ignorant, and to believe that authority-based filters are the same as being able to think properly.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Corvinus

    Cognitive elitist, I bear witness to. The fact of the matter is that the world does not rely on test scores to determine intellectual acumen. Rather, it is the decision making ability of (white) men and women, whether it be in their fields of study or when bantering with their friends about the latest, who have routinely demonstrated the capacity to sift through data, notice patterns, make inferences, and create solutions.

    “Understand that for the most part the bottom 6 deciles do not know or think (which is the same thing as trying to know)- they believe, which is a very different thing.”

    They believe as a result of them knowing what they learned, and thinking about how to improve upon what they know.

    “and yet in your mind [sic] the vast seething mass of dumbfounded dipshits are out there parsing compex narratives like a fucking boss”.

    I never made that claim. The fact of the matter is that a great of (white) people have the skills to take in information from a wide range of sources, make sense of that information, and draw conclusions based on that data. Now, the level of skill, accuracy, and detail involved, as well as the complexity of the task, is an entirely different matter.

    “There is no guarantee that the non-bright would understand the merits, so it’s rational for them not to bother.”

    To the contrary, the human race, especially white people, have shown repeatedly that their efforts to break down concepts into manageable chunks, as well as to teach critical thinking strategies, has led to significant progress in a wide range of areas.

    “It is rational for the cognitively weak to remain ignorant, and to believe that authority-based filters are the same as being able to think properly.”

    It is other than rational for this group of people to remain ignorant, lest they be taken advantage of by their intellectual betters, as you seemingly claim to be. Be mindful we all filter through information using authority-based sources, and through our experiences, are able to sort out which ideas are relevant and which ideas need further clarification.

    “You’re over-estimating humanity – you’re even over-estimating humanity’s cognitive élite.”

    You significantly underestimate the cognitive abilities of people who you deem to be cognitively unfit.

    Pray tell, what makes YOU a member of the cognitively elite? Must we whites now bow down to Zog?

  65. @Kratoklastes
    @Corvinus

    As to your questions... in reverse order:

    [I] know [iSteve runs interference for the hasbarats] specifically how?

    To clarify: I don't know. I have inferred; inferences have uncertainty, knowledge doesn't.

    The inference: a group of us who interact AFU (Away From Unz) has jointly noticed that at some point in controversies involving Zionist pilpul, responses to A123, Lot and JackD will be allowed through if and only if they make the anti-Zionist side look like low-information antisemitic rants.

    In other words, the field is cleared, leaving the impression that thoughtful antiZionists have walked away from the argument (which is interpreted as "the hasbarats won the field").

    Perhaps those three are regular contributors to a tip-jar, or perhaps iSteve is scared of being #MeJew'd; maybe he's insufficiently engaged in the issue, and sees shutting down the argument as sensible to improve the flow - it's just odd that it happens at the same point every.single.time (of which we are aware).

    Whatever is the driver, it's just seems clear that it happens consistently in those threads and almost no others.

    I had thought it was just my frequent and lusty use of profanity: it didn't bother me because I get entertainment just from writing stuff - this forum doesn't matter enough to self-impose a profanity filter in a bid to get past the wowsers.

    I had no way of knowing who else's material was/is being ditched in arguments with the aforementioned, or the point at which the debated was ended: then I find it's happened to several others of like mind, who do not use expletives at all. It'll all be collated and put into a nice little post elsewhere.

    ~

    Why [am I] not assisting [the masses] from not being bamboozled?

    It's not my job. I assist people in my kinship and friendship groups, where possible: very occasionally I'll waste some clock cycles on randos (e.g., the Unz audience) so long as it doesn't interrupt something important (like having a shit).

    I owe no debt to the seething mass of humanity - they get in my way, they eat of my substance, and they take up space that would be better dedicated to forests, open range, and attractive arrangements of edible herbs and berries. (I am 100% in favour of rapid global depopulation: I would prefer that it happened as a result of voluntary reproductive decisions, but whatever)

    ~

    What skill set do you employ compared to your fellow white brethren??

    I have no fraternal relationship - actual or imaginary - with 'white people'. My genetic brothers aren't white; my Masonic brethren aren't either.

    However the following is my shortlist:
    ① obsessive awareness regarding the information landscape;
    ② the cognitive grunt to process good data.

    Taking each in turn:

    Obsessive awareness

    This means intense, ongoing, active awareness of a bunch of things - including
     • DKE and its ramifications even for élite minds;
     • the difference between knowledge and belief;
     • how belief networks work and how they can get biased;
     • how propaganda works and how it is used and how to spot it;
     • how history has unfolded, and the role of belief biases and propaganda;
        and a bunch of other things, mostly related to technique in quantitative analysis.

    Things that, taken as a set, are understood by a vanishingly small slice of humanity, and actively practised by an even smaller slice. I have spent enough hours focused on this stuff to satisfy Malcolm Gladwell's fuckwitted trope, especially given the force multiplier that cognitive superiority entails.

    Awareness of those things would be roughly enough if - and only if - a person was a PIAAC Level V (i.e., inside the top 1% by competency).

    Which brings us to an obvious difference between me and the white race [IQ~(100,15) on a good day]...

    ②Cognitive grunt

    Elite cognition is not enough without ① - as Kruger and Dunning made clear 20 years ago - but it is necessary.

    After all, thousands of brilliant men (mostly men, let's be honest) go about their work with little regard to, or interest in, the 'dominant' controversies of the day. I have worked with dozens of them: they have better things to do than care about abstractions like human rights, imperialism and the shibboleth of 'representative government'.

    They might become aware of a controversy from time to time, and are well-equipped to form consistent expectations about the 'right' answer - at which point they tend to think "Well, the right answer looks like [blah] - someone will do that eventually" and return to their work.

    Together, ① and ② are almost sufficient (if only because ① tells you when the subject matter has levels of nuance that you'd better point ② at for a few hours - and then to quickly determine if there's a contribution to be made).

    By a quirk of genetics and environment, I have abundant cognitive grunt: by dint of ordeal-tolerance, it's objectively verifiable - at least, relative to a Cornell psych undergrad.

    Now my alma mater is not as illustrious as Cornell (Cornell's global #22; Monash is global #48), but my undergraduate degree required a significantly higher entry than Psych, and I finished in the 99th percentile of my graduating class (in undergrad, Honours and Masters - joint-top in the first two; outright in the second).

    And as I always point out, my major was numeracy-heavy (Economics and Econometrics, with Masters and [unfinished] PhD increasingly 'technical').

    And having done the PIAAC test, I find I'm a Level V - as expected, and where expected... inside the 99th percentile, but not 'Triple 9' (99.9th percentile) material.[1]

    I did the test because it seemed like the national-level outcomes were too dismal - although I don't hold the Mass Man in much esteem, I struggled with the idea that the average human in the Anglophone OECD was that incompetent.

    I half-expected that the OECD had pitched the test too high, perhaps to help national-level bureaucrats justify the waste of yet more tax money on 'education' budgets for the useless eaters' offspring.

    But no: it was far easier than I expected. (As an exercise I re-took it, and tried to do badly enough to achieve a Level III; that was actually quite hard, and it took me 5 attempts).

    So I ought to be safe from DKE - which is half the battle if operating outside of one's domain of direct expertise: I hate to call it 'intellectual humility', but that's almost what it amounts to.

    Epistemology is hard; empiricism is hard too. It's not for everyone: it requires literacy and numeracy that are well outside the competency range of the vast majority of people.

    Actively trying to know the world as it is, helps immensely. Being aware when you're not in your wheelhouse creates a greater hurdle before a thing becomes a fact (i.e., a thing about which knowledge is possible) as opposed to a belief (beliefs are completely unrelated to facts/knowledge - beliefs are inherently inferior and ought to be voice with uncertainty).

    Anyhow... that's the short version.

    [1] The fact that I didn't hit 99.9th percentile didn't faze me in the least - I didn't expect to get there if this was an IQ-type test (and it is). I know my place lol.

    BUT... it is CurrentYear, so...

    By the power vested in me by being part spear-chucker, and using BLM Wakanda Woke-Deduction, I can say that the test is racist against us downtrodden part-Maori.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “[I] know [iSteve runs interference for the hasbarats] specifically how?”

    I never asked that question. Rather, you responded to your own inquiry.

    “It’s not my job…”

    Wonderful that you are shirking your responsibility. The fact of the matter is it our duty to spread the word to everyone how the Orcs are taking over the Shire.

    “I am 100% in favour of rapid global depopulation…”

    Indeed, you are part of the 1 percent who holds to this belief.

    “Things that, taken as a set, are understood by a vanishingly small slice of humanity, and actively practised by an even smaller slice.”

    Perhaps we are understanding matters in our world quite well in a way that you find odd, but are nonetheless within the norm.

    “After all, thousands of brilliant men (mostly men, let’s be honest) go about their work with little regard to, or interest in, the ‘dominant’ controversies of the day.”

    And thousands of men go about their work with tremendous regard to, and interest, the dominant controversies of the day, desiring to seek solutions and compromises. It’s who we are. Well, maybe not you.

    “Actively trying to know the world as it is, helps immensely. Being aware when you’re not in your wheelhouse creates a greater hurdle before a thing becomes a fact (i.e., a thing about which knowledge is possible) as opposed to a belief (beliefs are completely unrelated to facts/knowledge – beliefs are inherently inferior and ought to be voice with uncertainty).”

    The masses everyday fit that description–we are aware of the world, seek to understand it, in ways you find quaint, but nonetheless are well within our mental framework and skill set.

  66. @Mark G.
    @Corvinus


    No. Because rampant voter vote is a myth.
     
    Rampant voter vote? Did you mean rampant voter fraud?


    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/texas-ballot-chaser-reveals-massive-voter-fraud-elect-biden

    https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/10/26/nolte-new-york-times-accidentally-confirms-breitbarts-voter-fraud-reporting/

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/philadelphias-horrible-record-democrat-voter-fraud-hits-new-low-voting-machine-laptop-memory-sticks-stolen/

    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/vote-by-mail-fraud/

    Replies: @Corvinus

    Regarding the ZeroHedge article…

    https://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/a-bald-faced-lie-candidates-implicated-in-voter-fraud-allegations-deny-claims

    Moreover, I wouldn’t be relying on James O’Keefe as a source.

    https://www.eipartnership.net/rapid-response/project-veritas-ballotharvesting

    He is well known for coordinating disinformation campaigns–he “pre-seeds” the ground and then simultaneously hits from a number of different accounts at once. Recall that he and a couple of colleagues were arrested in the Hale Boggs Federal Complex in New Orleans in January 2010 and charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony.

    Regarding the Brietbart article, the NYT explained how and why their stories were other than accurate.

    https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf

    https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37365484/Benkler-etal-Mail-in-Voter-Fraud-Anatomy-of-a-Disinformation-Campaign.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    Regarding the Gateway Pundit article, the flash drives are encrypted to prevent tampering, and specifically matched with individual voting machines. Upon programming, these encryption keys ‘marry’ the USB with the machine, and if placed in another machine, it will cause an error and the machine will not work. And just because there was a burglary involving these machines, that does not automatically mean that voter fraud will take place.

    Regarding the Armstrong Economics post…

    “So far, a total of 353 of the 3,141 counties in America located in 29 of the nation’s 50 states already have 1.8 million MORE registered voters than residents, according to an analysis by Judicial Watch.”

    Such estimates do not encompass the entire U.S., are based on questionable methodologies, and may include voters who are listed on state rolls as “inactive”. The consideration of inactive voters is a key issue here. Judicial Watch maintains registrations listed on state rolls as “inactive” are “vulnerable to abuse” by “voters who plan to fraudulently double-vote in two different jurisdictions on the same election day,” or by third parties “because a voter who has moved to a different state is unlikely to monitor the use of or communications concerning an old registration”. However, California’s National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) regulations state that although inactive voters remain on the rolls as registered voters who are eligible to vote, they do not receive “mailed election materials” (including mail-in ballots) and must “confirm residency at the polling place”.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Corvinus

    that although inactive voters remain on the rolls as registered voters who are eligible to vote, they do not receive “mailed election materials” (including mail-in ballots) and must “confirm residency at the polling place”.

    Unless election materials are requested, something that can be done online or by snail mail. Yes, doing so on account of someone else other than the listed voter constitutes fraud, but that's the only barrier to it happening.

  67. anon[410] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    @anon

    "Sorry, not interested in doxxing myself. Especially for a paid shill."

    So we can safely conclude that you are other than telling the truth when you allegedly witnessed voter fraud.

    "Your covers story keeps shifting, dude..."

    To the contrary, I remain steadfast in pursuit of truth and relevance. But your insistence that I get paid as a shill is tiresome. Ad hominem is always a fallacy, and your liberal use of it only demonstrates you losing the argument, or not having an argument at all. Invective is your norm.

    Replies: @anon

    So we can safely conclude that you are other than telling the truth when you allegedly witnessed voter fraud.

    Post your name, cell phone number and physical address right here, then maybe we can talk.

    “Your covers story keeps shifting, dude…”

    To the contrary, I remain steadfast in pursuit of truth and relevance.

    Lol @ a liar claiming to pursue the truth. Meanwhile, your cover story keeps shifting. Bad tradecraft, you’re supposed to be consistent in that.

    But your insistence that I get paid as a shill is tiresome.

    My, my. Touchy, are we? Must be a bit of a strain to have to push so many distractions through as comments in the face of growing revelations about Creepy Joe Biden, is that the problem? I can’t buy that you shill for the fun of it, so “paid shill” it is.

    Ad hominem is always a fallacy,

    Where have I used that fallacy, liar?

    Now, run along and get your latest Narrative points. Because the Biden situation is moving fast enough you can’t rely only on CNN, now can you?

    • Troll: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @anon

    "Post your name, cell phone number and physical address right here, then maybe we can talk."

    That is an odd request in light of Cancel Culture.

    "Lol @ a liar claiming to pursue the truth".

    Take pride that I gave you praise that projection is your strong suit.

    "Must be a bit of a strain to have to push so many distractions through as comments in the face of growing revelations about Creepy Joe Biden..."

    You mean accusations that have yet to be definitively proven.

    "Where have I used that fallacy, liar?"

    In this sentence, ma'am.

    Replies: @anon

  68. @anon
    @Corvinus

    So we can safely conclude that you are other than telling the truth when you allegedly witnessed voter fraud.

    Post your name, cell phone number and physical address right here, then maybe we can talk.

    “Your covers story keeps shifting, dude…”

    To the contrary, I remain steadfast in pursuit of truth and relevance.

    Lol @ a liar claiming to pursue the truth. Meanwhile, your cover story keeps shifting. Bad tradecraft, you're supposed to be consistent in that.

    But your insistence that I get paid as a shill is tiresome.

    My, my. Touchy, are we? Must be a bit of a strain to have to push so many distractions through as comments in the face of growing revelations about Creepy Joe Biden, is that the problem? I can't buy that you shill for the fun of it, so "paid shill" it is.

    Ad hominem is always a fallacy,

    Where have I used that fallacy, liar?

    Now, run along and get your latest Narrative points. Because the Biden situation is moving fast enough you can't rely only on CNN, now can you?

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Post your name, cell phone number and physical address right here, then maybe we can talk.”

    That is an odd request in light of Cancel Culture.

    “Lol @ a liar claiming to pursue the truth”.

    Take pride that I gave you praise that projection is your strong suit.

    “Must be a bit of a strain to have to push so many distractions through as comments in the face of growing revelations about Creepy Joe Biden…”

    You mean accusations that have yet to be definitively proven.

    “Where have I used that fallacy, liar?”

    In this sentence, ma’am.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Corvinus

    “Post your name, cell phone number and physical address right here, then maybe we can talk.”

    That is an odd request in light of Cancel Culture.

    You demand I doxx myself, but won't do the same?

    lol.

    Repeat: Have seen vote fraud carried out in my own state, your claim it doesn't happen is Fake News. Which is to be expected from a trolling shill.

    “Lol @ a liar claiming to pursue the truth”.

    Take pride that I gave you praise that projection is your strong suit.

    Tell us all again how a police officer stood on George Floyd's neck, liar. Then after defending your lie, tell us about how you "pursue the truth".

    “Must be a bit of a strain to have to push so many distractions through as comments in the face of growing revelations about Creepy Joe Biden…”

    You mean accusations that have yet to be definitively proven.

    Nope. The tar pit is deep. Is your name on Biden's laptop, too?

    “Where have I used that fallacy, liar?”

    In this sentence, ma’am.

    Nope. Your ignorance of elementary logic is obvious and boring.

    Now, run along and get your "last 24 hour talking points", you have a busy time before you.

    Don't forget to stuff your local ballot box in the name of Democracy!

  69. @t
    OT: two recent polls find prop 16 trailing. There haven't been many polls so the possibility of error is still high but four out of five polls have it trailing. The PPIC also found that in the presidential race the white hispanic gap was only 2 points.

    https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2pr670k8
    https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-october-2020.pdf

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    It’s pretty frustrating that PredictIt doesn’t have a market open on Prop 16. It has markets open on Props 15 and 22.

  70. @Realist
    @Jtgw


    Beautiful and scary to watch the government lose legitimacy so rapidly.
     
    For those that have been paying attention...it hasn't been rapid...but decades in the making.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Slowly at first, then all at once.

    • Agree: Realist
  71. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Liberty Mike


    Stalin’s maxim still holds as there is a hole wider than those created by the great wall of the 92 Cowboys offensive line between (b) and (c) as well as between (c) and (d).
     
    Perhaps so, but we used to do something to plug those holes, didn't we? If so, then is there a good reason not to return to that old practice?

    (Whenever I suggest returning to an old practice, the formidable @dfordoom tends to explain why one cannot return, but I wasn't making a reactionary point generally. I was referring to a specific procedure—whatever that was—that as far as I know used to work. The public apparently lacks confidence in election procedure now.)

    Replies: @Liberty Mike, @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    That process would be condemned by all the power centers as voter suppression. It demands too much of the voter, they’ll say. We know what that means.

  72. @Dan Hess
    The reason this election has no validity has nothing to do with counting and everything to do with censorship and big tech manipulations.

    The basic flow of information is junked by Google and other big tech, and it isn't only the bannings.

    Biden's corruption story was literally banned on Twitter and Facebook.

    And then crap like this:

    "Election Interference: Google Suppresses Breitbart News in Search – Even with Exact Headline"

    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/10/27/election-interference-google-suppresses-breitbart-news-in-search-even-with-exact-headline/

    Breitbart was arguably the most influential news site in 2016 and now it is simply frozen out. As are countless others. Many more conservative sites are deranked in various ways -- get something off the front page of Google and you have effectively killed it.

    But this shocked me: The doctor that has been arguably the most authoritative voice on twitter regarding COVID and lockdowns -- reliably bringing the alarmism -- isn't even a doctor at all!

    https://jordanschachtel.substack.com/p/the-impersonator-eric-feigl-ding

    As a great COVID authority he now appears in Biden commercials attacking Trump, but he was never a medical doctor at all, and he has been a far-left operative for many years.

    Don't forget that big tech censored as "COVID misinformation during a pandemic" (basically a new censorship category of 'grandmakiller') anything that resisted the COVID panic -- then of course panic won because it was the only thing allowed and Trump had to buck the consensus by rejecting panic.

    Conservatives obsess about the counting of votes, as if that's where they are being cheated.

    No, the reason our election has no validity is because of tech censorship.

    The answer isn't to try some stupid and lengthy section 230 process over many years. The answer for conservatives politicians to declare that Google/Facebook/YouTube have, by their censorship, destroyed the legitimacy of a Biden win.

    Republican Senators should simply declare:

    "Joe Biden will not ever be a legitimate president. Google ruined that."

    "Twitter Censorship Stripped Biden of His Political Legitimacy."

    "Because of Facebook's Censorship, Joe Biden has now lost the chance to legitimately win the Presidency"

    Rejecting the legitimacy of the political process because of censorship not a move I expect Milquetoast Republicans to make. But it is the truth, and the only way I see to address what has actually happened. Our Democracy is just about dead and big tech is the culprit.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Our Democracy is just about dead and big tech is the culprit.

    It makes the bizarre obsession with installing Kamala Harris into the White House by any means necessary more comprehensible now, doesn’t it?

  73. @Corvinus
    @Mark G.

    Regarding the ZeroHedge article...

    https://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/a-bald-faced-lie-candidates-implicated-in-voter-fraud-allegations-deny-claims

    Moreover, I wouldn't be relying on James O'Keefe as a source.

    https://www.eipartnership.net/rapid-response/project-veritas-ballotharvesting

    He is well known for coordinating disinformation campaigns--he "pre-seeds" the ground and then simultaneously hits from a number of different accounts at once. Recall that he and a couple of colleagues were arrested in the Hale Boggs Federal Complex in New Orleans in January 2010 and charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony.

    Regarding the Brietbart article, the NYT explained how and why their stories were other than accurate.

    https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf

    https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37365484/Benkler-etal-Mail-in-Voter-Fraud-Anatomy-of-a-Disinformation-Campaign.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    Regarding the Gateway Pundit article, the flash drives are encrypted to prevent tampering, and specifically matched with individual voting machines. Upon programming, these encryption keys ‘marry’ the USB with the machine, and if placed in another machine, it will cause an error and the machine will not work. And just because there was a burglary involving these machines, that does not automatically mean that voter fraud will take place.

    Regarding the Armstrong Economics post...

    "So far, a total of 353 of the 3,141 counties in America located in 29 of the nation’s 50 states already have 1.8 million MORE registered voters than residents, according to an analysis by Judicial Watch."

    Such estimates do not encompass the entire U.S., are based on questionable methodologies, and may include voters who are listed on state rolls as "inactive". The consideration of inactive voters is a key issue here. Judicial Watch maintains registrations listed on state rolls as “inactive” are “vulnerable to abuse” by “voters who plan to fraudulently double-vote in two different jurisdictions on the same election day,” or by third parties “because a voter who has moved to a different state is unlikely to monitor the use of or communications concerning an old registration". However, California’s National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) regulations state that although inactive voters remain on the rolls as registered voters who are eligible to vote, they do not receive “mailed election materials” (including mail-in ballots) and must “confirm residency at the polling place”.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    that although inactive voters remain on the rolls as registered voters who are eligible to vote, they do not receive “mailed election materials” (including mail-in ballots) and must “confirm residency at the polling place”.

    Unless election materials are requested, something that can be done online or by snail mail. Yes, doing so on account of someone else other than the listed voter constitutes fraud, but that’s the only barrier to it happening.

  74. anon[912] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    @anon

    "Post your name, cell phone number and physical address right here, then maybe we can talk."

    That is an odd request in light of Cancel Culture.

    "Lol @ a liar claiming to pursue the truth".

    Take pride that I gave you praise that projection is your strong suit.

    "Must be a bit of a strain to have to push so many distractions through as comments in the face of growing revelations about Creepy Joe Biden..."

    You mean accusations that have yet to be definitively proven.

    "Where have I used that fallacy, liar?"

    In this sentence, ma'am.

    Replies: @anon

    “Post your name, cell phone number and physical address right here, then maybe we can talk.”

    That is an odd request in light of Cancel Culture.

    You demand I doxx myself, but won’t do the same?

    lol.

    Repeat: Have seen vote fraud carried out in my own state, your claim it doesn’t happen is Fake News. Which is to be expected from a trolling shill.

    “Lol @ a liar claiming to pursue the truth”.

    Take pride that I gave you praise that projection is your strong suit.

    Tell us all again how a police officer stood on George Floyd’s neck, liar. Then after defending your lie, tell us about how you “pursue the truth”.

    “Must be a bit of a strain to have to push so many distractions through as comments in the face of growing revelations about Creepy Joe Biden…”

    You mean accusations that have yet to be definitively proven.

    Nope. The tar pit is deep. Is your name on Biden’s laptop, too?

    “Where have I used that fallacy, liar?”

    In this sentence, ma’am.

    Nope. Your ignorance of elementary logic is obvious and boring.

    Now, run along and get your “last 24 hour talking points”, you have a busy time before you.

    Don’t forget to stuff your local ballot box in the name of Democracy!

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS