Slashdot Mirror

The social sciences have tied themselves in a theocratic knot:

The politics of exclusion is evil therefore any attempt to exclude confounding variables in human ecology causality is evil.

Let's look at that word "ecology" for a moment:

There is something called "the ecological fallacy" that like the bromide "correlation doesn't imply causation" is trotted out or ignored at the convenience of the theologian posing as social scientist. The "diagnoses" of "fear" "xenophobia" "racism" are all modern day equivalents of "demon possession" in the moral zeitgeist of these theocrats.

Let me give you a contrasting example from the medical profession to illustrate exactly how intellectually, scientifically and morally bankrupt are social sciences by comparison:

My wife is dying of Huntington's Disease and there is a cure called ASO gene silencing. It has been tested in the entire pipeline of animal models up to and including primate models, and has been shown to be both safe and effective at slowing, halting and even partially reversing symptoms in moderate doses. It is undergoing human safety trials and even though her decline is accelerating toward death and she consents to treatment, she is denied the treatment. This cruel reality actually has _some_ ethical basis due to the need to ensure that before a treatment is unleashed on even a dying population, that it be shown to be both safe _and_ effective -- not by mere "empirical data" (compiled correlations of naturalistic observations) but by establishing causality with experimental controls to exclude confounding variables including placebo effect. Even after being so demonstrated, she would not be treated without her consent.

Compare and contrast "social science" imposing its "treatments" on massive numbers of people without their consent, let alone showing the treatment is both safe and effective through experimental controls.

I'm sure many if not most "social scientists" would give me some sort of "diagnosis" for rendering the foregoing opinion in favor of "the politics of exclusion" and, upon that "diagnosis" would judge me to be a danger to myself and others, hence, to be deprived of the kind of society in which I might prefer to live as a preventative action. This, in their esteemed expert opinion is not "prejudice" even though it removes from me a basic human right without so much as an accusation of commission of a crime, let alone trial let alone full _judicial_ proceeding which judges me after I've made the case for my innocence and/or sanity. No, _that_ is not "prejudice". What is "prejudice" is some personal preference I might exercise in my private life given limited information and limited resources to obtain that information.

Seriously, it's all falling down and good riddance.

Let's hope something like sortocracy replaces it. http://sortocracy.org/

In the fight against supremacists, choosing one's battles is as important as it is in any other war. I would suggest that the kind of supremacists that are currently imposing social theories from central government, regardless of how benign or "beneficial" we might, personally, believe those theories to be, are far more dangerous than "hate" groups. After all, "hate" is the emotion of the powerless.

Toward this end, I would suggest that sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them is a much nobler objective.

This would include permitting those individuals who believe a "white" (whatever that means to them) society is better for them, to enjoy, or suffer, the consequences of that social theory so long as they are willing to accept the testing of other social theories. Sure, there are reasons to believe those calling themselves "KKK" believe not only in "white" supremacy, but in slavery. However, until proponents of alternate social theories cease imposing them on these "KKK" members, it is quite plausible that many of these "white" supremacists would actually be quite happy to see a fair, empirical, comparison of social theories put in to practice by mutually consenting adults.

Indeed, given the present power structure, those who are attacking the "white" supremacists rather than the on-going violation consent by central government imposition of social theory, are moral cowards, hypocrites and supremacists deserving of even more intense counter-attack.

Science in which experimental controls are illegal, isn't.

Experiments conducted on unwilling human subjects isn't ethical.

All of the social "sciences" are unethical non-sciences.

The solution?

Sort proponents of social theories into governments that test them.

I'd create a State of Nature to preserve the pre-civil culture of northern Europeans -- not just to "save the world" but because that's the enrivonment I want:

1) Buy up large tracts of undeveloped land in nations, in exchange for low land value taxation, that agreed to let people, on those lands, live by the 7 points of agreements between individuals outlined in the aforelinked blog post on "The State of Nature".
2) Permit any indigenous peoples to remain so long as they agreed to those points, excluding everyone else but invitees of the people in those nature preserves. This includes financing a nature preserve patrols (drones, etc.) to prevent encroachment.
3) Set up a cloning foundation to clone people who have been taken out of the gene pool by the current dysgenic culture -- particularly highly intelligent and attractive females that got conned into giving up childbearing for a "career".
4) Set up a foundation for emergency relocation of population when a host nation violates their agreement to permit autonomy.
5) Invite people I like personally to the nature preserve in which I want to live.
6) Invite other lonely billionaires to live in other nature preserves so they could enjoy the natural healthy relationships with beautiful intelligent women.
7) Do what I can to help Bezos, Musk, et al to reduce civilization's ecological footprint on the biosphere -- preferably by space migration. This involves all manner of technology.

Virtually all sexual species exhibit aggression. The problem is war, not mere aggression. And this problem goes beyond mere conflict between human groups. E. O. Wilson's "The Social Conquest of Earth" describes how group selection dominates the environment and, in the case of human eusocial organization, degrades biodiversity.

The price of civilization is eusocial organization and the price of eusocial organization is war.

One way of addressing this failing is to turn civilization outward, away from the biosphere, toward "war" on lifeless rock in space -- converting it to life -- leaving the biosphere free of human eusocial organization.

Is there a place for humans in the biosphere?

Yes, but only if individual sovereignty is ruthlessly enforced.

If a group of people wanted to exclude homosexuals from their territory, paying the relocation costs of anyone who wanted to emigrate, how big must that group be before you would permit them to have their own way of life?

Sorting proponents into governments that test them is the penetration of the Enlightenment into the social sciences. This allows the social sciences to progress beyond "correlation doesn't imply causation" to perform ethical experiments on human subjects that, because there are experimental control groups, permits much stronger inference of causal laws in human ecologies (human societies) than do mere ecological correlations.

So what's not to like about locales, like the Mozilla Foundation or Google or even Silicon Valley, excluding from their midst those who are incompatible with the social experiment that most people want to perform on themselves? After all, it is only by consent of the governed that a jurisdiction can be deemed legitimate.

Here's the problem:

In the modern zeitgeist it is considered the moral equivalent of Satanism to practice what is called "the politics of exclusion". Why? Because it "discriminates".

These fuzzy tropes forget one thing, however -- and it is something that anyone who is involved in technology should understand in their gut:

It is only by "excluding" various hypotheses that we can "discriminate" between truth and falsehood in the real world.

But no one wants to admit that their religion might be false -- including those whose religion is the de facto state religion that enforces "inclusion" and prohibits "discrimination".

In the process, as with the wars for freedom of religion that lasted over a century, we cannot expect this penetration of Enlightenment values into the social sciences to take place without a struggle.

I'm sorry, but - is it possible you are unaware of what the Enlightenment was?

The principle belief is the Tabula Rasa Myth, which has been thoroughly disproven by over a decade of genetics research. Literally thousands upon thousands of studies have proven that for any behavioral attribute that can be reliably measured, there is a genetic component. We have the Soviet Union, founded upon your religion, that executed scientists who did not believe, and that tortured and indoctrinated millions with the belief that conditioning can change people significantly.

Social science today, is beholden to these views and is unable to grasp genetics.

This very topic would be demonstrative of this religion. What do we know about all the people they are describing who are impoverished? They have IQs of less than 80. Disease has affected every society, obviously that is no hindrance to civilization. A minimum average intelligence however appears to be required.

You undoubtedly recoil at this fact, just as all sociologists who continue to promote Marxist theory. Many people reading this will probably want to moderate my post down.

But, that's how it goes. Most believers can't accept challenges to their beliefs. Yours is a curious way of dealing with however.

In real science control groups are required to establish causality.

Social scientists are as terrified of real control groups testing causal hypotheses in human ecology as were the Jesuits of independent interpretations of the Bible. This is because social science is essentially a pre-enlightenment theocratic discipline:

If the powers-that-be oppose your social "science" then no matter how much data you gather, some variant of "correlation doesn't imply causation" will be trotted out to ignore it.

If the powers-that-be like your social "science" then the NYT will take one data point -- perhaps even one anecdote about one person at some point in history and base public policy on it. With the mass media holding mass and preaching said sermons the pious slaves to intellectual fashion, generally those with college degrees from the seminaries known as "colleges", and and with IQs below 140 who like to pretend to be morally superior "thought leaders" (knowing they have safety in numbers from hearing sermons at "mass") will then to the dirty work on the street.

Moreover, this theocratic sophistry, imposing social theories on unwilling human subjects, locks into place powerful interests that oppose any truth-discovery.

From Machiavelli's "The Prince" chapter 6:

"It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them."

If we are ever to escape this vicious cycle driven by the social sciences, the Enlightenment must penetrate them through Sortocracy:

Sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them.

Fortunately, like the Protestant movement's impetus to independently interpret the Bible due to the Gutenberg press, the Internet is now letting people have direct access to and independent interpretation of data about human ecologies -- and the demand for freedom from imposition of social theories on unwilling human subjects will increase until freedom from theocratic forms of government -- and their social scientist theologians -- will win the day.

In the process, as with the wars for freedom of religion that lasted over a century, we cannot expect this penetration of Enlightenment values into the social sciences to take place without a struggle.

*Sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them.

Everything else is in the noise.

Taxing the net liquid value of assets at modern portfolio theory's risk free interest rate, rather than taxing economic activity, is the way out of this abominable situation in which independent inventors are put through the meat-grinder.

Of course, the wealthy will oppose this in every way since they currently benefit from the protection of their property rights without having to pay for that protection, while those producing wealth pay the taxes.

This means political solutions are out of the question.

So, rather than having the corrupt, evil, stupid and/or ignorant drag down the rest of us into political economic Hell, all inventors should demand sortoracy: Sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them.

Sortocracy -- sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them -- is the correct constitutive dimension of States -- not mere population.

The Curse of the Network Effect is obvious enough in real estate that there is an entire school of political economy geared toward a single tax on land value -- a school most identified with the 19th century political economics author, Henry George.

Again, the real solution is to stop taxing economic activity (capital gains, income, sales, value added, etc) and instead tax market-assessed liquid value of assets.

And, again, of course, not many people are going to really understand this idea so it must be demonstrated by those who do get it.

That's why we need Sortocracy.

The proposal you link to essentially removes all control anyone has over their own property. Everyone is, in effect, required to sell any property at any time to the highest bidder. That may be economically efficient, but it sucks on a day-to-day basis for real people. It's the "infinite frictionless plane" type of economist thought problem, not an actual solution to anything. The law would last about as long as it would take for grandma to be kicked out of her house.

Again, the real solution is to stop taxing economic activity (capital gains, income, sales, value added, etc) and instead tax market-assessed liquid value of assets.

And, again, of course, not many people are going to really understand this idea so it must be demonstrated by those who do get it.

That's why we need Sortocracy.

The solution is to stop taxing economic activity (capital gains, income, sales, value added, etc) and instead tax market-assessed liquid value of assets.

Of course, not many people are going to really understand this idea so it must be demonstrated by those who do get it.

That's why we need Sortocracy.