I've noted something among people who seem to be on the left side of the IQ spectrum, regardless of political persuasion, and that is being unable to hold the ideas of exceptions and rules in their minds simultaneously. Basically imagine a scenario where X is true 99% of the time, but Y is true 1% of the time. There are a lot of people who will see the 99% and then firmly believe "X is true all of the time" while there are others who will see the 1% and firmly believe "X cannot be true because Y is possible". They wrap themselves up in the emotional satisfaction of being entirely committed to 'their side' of the issue, to the point where they cannot even visualize the inverse. Take women in politics or in emergency services as an example. It is a provable fact that the vast majority of women are more easily influenced by emotional appeals or are willing to fall into groupthink in order to stay in the current in-group. Likewise it is a provable fact that the vast majority of women are physically less capable then men. Where we see this exception/rule vs. rule/exception play out is when we run into Imp types on one side where they believe all, 100.00% of women fit that mold exactly, or the more common "well I know a woman who is really strong or really competent, therefore we should let them all do it".
They don't seem to be able to think on a high enough level to formulate "yes, this result is so likely as to be functionally universal, to the point where it's not worth risking at all, but it is technically possible that another result could happen".
I hand you a burlap sack with 100 scorpions inside and tell you to reach in and grab the one that I pulled the stinger off of and if you get the right one, I'll give you a thousand dollars. A bad deal for you overall, but it is still technically possible to win. The real crux of the issue is how many stingers do I have to pull off to make you willing to do it? What if it's 90-10? 80-20? 70-30? And so on.
You an probably think out what you'd do, and what the ratio would have to be in order for you to take that risk, if that were a real situation I put you in. But I find when it's more detached ideas like "should women be allowed to serve in public office" a huge portion of people aren't able to even think like that. To them it's either "no, all women should be banned because none of them can do it" or "of course they should, women are capable of being just as reasonable and competent as a man". When the answer a lot closer to the truth is "no, women should be banned because most of them can't do it and it's not worth the risk. But it is still technically possible to find a rare one who can."
But that's just an off the cuff example, not the main point. The main point is that there seem to be a lot of people are more willing to emotionally commit to being fully on board with something, even if it means denying reality, to the point where they can't admit or even understand that while the result of the decision may be right, the facts of how they arrived at it could be wrong.
Do I want to live in a black neighborhood? No. Well how many does it take to be considered a "black neighborhood"? 1? A whole family? three families? And so on. Bring this up and it probably won't take long to run into either "All blacks are _____" or a "Race isn't a real factor, it's purely character" True Believer. I think the foundation of that is that their brain can't work hard enough to accept both rules and exceptions, and that both can exist for good reasons at the same time. They default to lower level simplistic thinking which is really just feeling and go full in on that because it feels good.
Anyways, just a random thought I had. Though I'm curious if anyone has noticed this, or if you disagree.
I think it's simpler than that. They just say whatever is convenient to them at the time. If the exception is going to get them the results they want, the exception is the rule. If the (perceived) generality favors them, they'll side with that and write off the exceptions as irrelevant.
You have to remember that if you don't have any ideological or moral foundation for your beliefs, then it really doesn't matter why you believe it. All that matters is how it makes you feel at any given moment. And if something causes you any kind of cognitive dissonance, it's much easier to throw it out entirely than to sit down and work through the painful, conflicting data.
TLDR: Could be stupid. Could be lazy. After a certain point, it stops mattering.
Words are magic spells.
That's a literal tenet of neo-marxist fuckery.
Watch me turn this diverse, peaceful group into an angry mob with a magic word!
My most useful epiphany about the world was understanding that to at least half the population, language isn't language. It's just combinations of mouth sounds, squawks, and barks to generate a desired behavior or compliance from others. Most people are stimulus response devices.
Transactional communication versus informational communication. Language as a collection of passwords and magic spells, deployed in order to extract your preferred outcome from any person or situation, versus language as a shared means to discover and promote a Darwinian objective truth.
The illegal immigrant crosses the border to escape justice for his crimes at home. He tells the authorities in this new country that he is a refugee. Not because it is true, but because he has been told that this password will get him what he wants.
When you object to this dynamic, because it permits anyone to illegally enter your country so long as they know the password, a leftist will call you a racist. Not because you have said anything racist, but because the accusation of racism will function as a magic spell that compels others to oppose you.
At some point, evil people succeed in perverting communication so completely that good people are left with no more good choices. You can’t use reason to convince a systematically dishonest person of anything.
A particular perversion of language that I noticed is expanding a word's denotation while keeping the connotation, as in the example of racist that you mention.
I'd argue it's far more than half, closer to 85%. And for human history it's been 95% .
The blips of rationalism are just that, blips. Depends who you ask, but personally I'd say we've had less than 60 years of rationalism being the dominate force of thinking. And I mean that cumulatively.
It's more than half. Because that group includes all women, plus another percentage of males.
;)
I summarize it as using language it to communicate information vs. using mouth noises to get a desired outcome.
That may all very well be true. But I find amateur armchair psychoanalysis and trying to pin down why people believe and do the things they do to be interesting.
So true.
Moral relativism is anchored on not being a pariah.
That basically sums up how most people engage.
It's not even exceptions to a rule, just any qualifiers at all.
I say "I don't want a shit sandwich" and they say "how can you be against sandwiches they're great".
Same thing with vaccines. I say traditional vaccines are okay but mRNA ones are dangerous shit and they say "how can you be anti-vax?? polio vaccine saved lives"
Same thing with immigration. I say legal immigrants are fine but illegal ones have to go home and they say "but immigrants are honest and hard working how can you be against them?"
For instance every single time NPR reports on the 'far right's' stance on illegal immigration they end up talking about legal immigrants - far right are stupid to be against illegal immigrants because immigrants are super great, citing a report on legal immigrants. At first I thought this was intentionally slight of hand, but now I think they've hired so many DEI morons they don't actually understand that legal and illegal immigrants are different things.
Yup. They take mental shortcuts, either out of laziness or because it's "inconvenient" to their goal.
Like just recently I saw a thread on resetera, and the number of people diving in and auto-believing some book claiming it was Joe Rogan's fault that Harris couldn't get on for an interview.
No one even questions the book's claim. They just insta-assume it's true and then spit out a bunch of baseless ad hominem bullshit about Joe Rogan. How he's a "racist", sexist, just about any and every nonsensical accusation they can come up with.
And these are the same idiots who wag their finger at anyone who dares to do their own research. Instead insisting that you solely put your hands in the hands of the so-called "experts". Because the so-called experts could "NEVER" be completely off their rockers or full of total bullshit.
My favorite example is regulatory capture. A leftist will eagerly believe that the government agencies meant to regulate corporations have been fully captured by those corporations, but try to tell a leftist that the institutions meant to discover and curate our information have been similarly captured by biased ideologues. You will receive no principled coherence in such an exchange.
I believe 100% it's unintentional for most people. Only the ones making money are doing it on purpose. Most PEOPLE in general don't have a linear thought process, their have an associative one. Stimulus response plus operant conditioning and that's the extent of most people's "reasoning"
Summed up, there are more stupid reasons to believe true things than good reasons. So just because somebody's conclusions are right doesn't make them not retarded.
Are you sure you aren’t the one being dishonest in this example? Maybe because you have been conditioned to argue by proxy in order to hide your actual opinions?
Globalists have spent decades meticulously removing all anti-immigration views from the Overton Window. Any opposition to immigration is now immediately framed as racist. The workaround for this state of affairs is an appeal to the rule of law; illegal immigration is bad because it is illegal!
Is murder bad because it is illegal? Does mass immigration, with all of its observable negative consequences for your people and your culture, magically become good if it is legal?
Who decides what is legal? A bunch of hostile foreigners in judge robes handing down edicts from their courtroom kingdoms? A government bureaucracy infiltrated by subversive Marxists who hate you and your nation?
Legal versus illegal immigration is a largely meaningless distinction. They both represent an existential threat to your peoples, your cultures, and your nations. Arguing by proxy is how you end up with grifters like Vivek weaseling their way into your movement in order to promote their own racial/ethnic tribes at the expense of yours - legally, of course.
Pretty much exactly what I'm talking about here.
I say I'm for reasonable amounts of legal immigration and not mass legal immigration and, in your case, they say "how are you for immigration are you dumb?!" It's like adjectives don't exist for them.
I can get them to explain back to me what a reasonable amount of immigration means and what mass immigration means. But they can't think with them side-by-side in their brain.
And I don't think they're pretending to not get it. It's that same kind of "how would you feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast" thing where they can't even understand the concept that an adjective can change the meaning of something.
That was you in your previous comment.
But even if you had said “reasonable”, you still aren’t staring your opinion honestly. I’m assuming you oppose any immigration, legal or otherwise, that threatens to upset the native culture or demographics of the host nation, yes? So say that. Explicitly.
Instead, you deploy obscurant qualifiers like “reasonable”. Who defines what is reasonable? Everyone defines it for themselves. So you’ve advocated for what, precisely? An unfixed position that will garner a lot of support from people who imagine you agree with them. Maybe you should run for office.
Here's the abstract for you: you're too dumb to understand what I wrote.
It's not your fault, probably, but that's just how it is. Get over it and move on.
It is the ideology of "I am always right, righteous, and good, and my opponents are always wrong, wrongful, and evil.". It exists in both sides, though right now it is more amplified and even supported in the left-wing side. The exception IS the rule, or the rule is the rule, changing depending on what the person declares, because they are always right, while their opponent is always wrong. I find this sort of thinking is much more common in those with any level of reach or audience, than the ones with trouble differentiating exceptions and rules.
All that stated, what you identify is for sure a problem. Exceptions exist in almost all things. If someone was sliced in half at the heart and lung level, they are dead. Simple obvious rule. But there are examples of people living several hours after such an event occurring, and obviously you treat living people, even those soon to die, differently than dead people. Even such a clear rule as a bisected human being dead or not has exceptions that must be adhered to.
We live in a world of compromise and adaptive situational acceptance. Should a human kill another human? No. Well, maybe. War, defense, being near the Chicago cop-free-zone, everyone is going to have different limits to the rule, but as a society, we together make and draw a line. And if people cross that line, we make a ruling on a case by case basis.
A woman with psychopathy will be less prone to being passively emotionally manipulated than a woman without. If emotional judgement is your line in the sand for female politicians, then diagnosed psychopathic women should still be allowed in as a clear exception, since they literally can't be subject to it. Conversely, an overemotional man, perhaps through PTSD, clearly should be banned for the same reason. But we can't identify these things with 100% accuracy, so you're calling for a sex-based ban on a "good enough" measure because the rule is the rule, regardless of exceptions. Which... Puts you in the same classification as what you're complaining about. Because unfortunately, reality matters. What you do matters. What you think, doesn't. You can think you're not a killer, if you killed, by reality standards you killed. You can think you're an enlightened centrist, but if you always vote in one direction, by reality's standards you're aligned with that side.
You can think about exceptions all you want, but if your rulings are always about the general case, then you're the exact same as someone who doesn't think about exceptions, and simply auto-rules on the general case, except they're more efficient about it. If the problem of women in politics is many of them can't act in a the right manner, but not all of them, then your issue isn't whether they're women or not, your issue is you're using the wrong filter. Filter the participants right, and wind up with a 90/10 split, or a 95/5 split, or a 60/40 split, or whatever, and accept those results, results that clearly have an uneven distribution based on one arbitrary factor, but based on the factors that actually matter, are all 100/0.
Reality is a machine. It runs VERY smoothly. Math into physics into chemistry into biology into anthropology into sociology into psychology, it all follows very reliable formulas from the top down. You're piloted by electronic pulses in your brain, on and off, 1's and 0's. Your muscles contract or relax on electronic signals, 1's and 0's, too. You're a meat computer, and so is every other living thing, and all those 1's and 0's can be edited or read or predicted just like a computer chip. If you're having large-scale issues in outputs, the issue isn't the output, it's the inputs or how they're processed.
"We have the wrong people in politics, we need this trait, which is rare among this group, so we should ban that group." is weak generalist nonsense. Select for the trait, then! Include it in a series of filters! If you need someone with specifically pale white skin but no other conditionals for some reason like an art project or testing a spray-tan dye, and an albino black man shows up with perfect white skin... He's still in the running, despite his group blatantly being out of that trait in general.
Obviously, exceptions exist: We don't have infinite resources to do infinite filters and selections, so we DO need general-case rules in our day-to-day lives of billions of interactions, but the more important and rare the decision, the more we should be willing to allocate to solve for the solution rather than solve for the general. (EDIT: And "solving" who will be ruling over you, and making judgment upon your life and freedom, as a rules-set one-time instance from now to your death, different occupiers of the role but the role's creation being a one-off... That's both super rare AND super-important, at least, I would think so.)
Nah. Stereotypes work.
I think you're right. This is one of the reasons why the midwit meme is my favorite. It is just so true and so applicable.
I had a great English teacher in high who was a stickler for the rules of grammar when we were writing essays. He whipped us into shape. And then, he had us read Faulkner. James Joyce (not a fan). Cold Mountain. All these authors and books that are very important to the modern literary tradition and yet, the authors broke the rules of grammar like crazy!
Understanding exceptions and rules and when it's proper to BREAK the rules is very important!
School is shit meme:
https://en.meming.world/images/en/thumb/c/c4/Midwit_meme_1.jpg/480px-Midwit_meme_1.jpg
Investing meme:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F7eb0a78e-5d4e-444a-8450-61d44b18f21c_886x499.jpeg
etc
You're not quite there yet. You're still embracing the solutions of one side of your recognized idiot ball groups while claiming to recognize their failings.
Complex problems need complex solutions, not just throwing out the exceptions with the rules. Most women shouldn't vote or hold office, but the problem is the voting being done by retards. Voting needs to be qualified in a meritocratic, un-purchasable uninheritable way - if you read Heinlein's starship troopers, it's not what the movie makes it out to be. Military service is not the exclusive path to voting, but proving your moral character through dangerous civic service is how you earn it.
Universal suffrage was a mistake, but that doesn't make a male communist preferable to an actually intelligent woman. And it is possible to sort out the commie goblins from the moral people.
And yet a simple election map, broken down by gender, shows that his solution would, in fact, work.
"It works at the minimum necessary level" is no excuse to make a shit solution when better exists. For all your pretending to be white your thought process follows hood engineering standards.
go further
Why do we need voting at all?
Nuance is weakness in a polarized political climate.
For a recent example, say you're arguing with a leftist about the January 6 pardons. The leftist says they're all violent insurrectionists. You reply that the overwhelming majority were peaceful. The leftist jumps on the words "overwhelming majority" as an acknowledgement some amount of violence happened. You're now arguing from a position of weakness.
Even if you insist this example proves your theory correct, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme. You must work in a binary, because the opposition will use ALL nuance and exceptions to their advantage. It's no different from the phenomenon of the right becoming less conservative over time, because each compromise drags them further to the left, while the left refuses to compromise on their own ideals.
You need to be unyielding, and even if you acknowledge a situation has exceptions, you cannot vocalize them.
You are correct, and this is why a country functions on controlling the probability of something occurring rather than its absolute existence or nonexistence. No matter how great your country is, someone is going to end up in poverty. Libs point at the 1% and demand we overturn every functioning system to achieve the impossible.
What you are describing is called the continuum fallacy and it is explicitly utilized by progressives of all stripes, for decades, to destroy categories for the express purpose of installing whatever nonsense they want. The continuum fallacy is simply the idea of a 110 IQ retard saying "there is an infinite gradient of color, therefore green does not exist."
I'm going to copy and paste a message I sent a friend when we were discussing Concord and "woke" as it directly pertains to this conversation:
The dialogue around "woke" is identical to the dialogues of gender, marriage, family, etc. All these battlefields are fought by shitlib marxists using the continuum fallacy in order to push their ideology onto real life. What IS gender? What IS a family? You can't define them absolutely without any grey whatsoever, therefore my demiqueer quadrouple is just as valid as your hetero family, bigot! They truly think that just because there exists an infinite gradient between green and blue that green and blue don't exist. Likewise with woke, there is a core everyone agrees on (Concord), but there is grey space outside. To the faggot leftist, this means woke has no definition, because they expect linguistic purity from their opponents so they can attempt gotchas when they can point out outliers. Of course, when using their own definitions, they utilize this fact in opposite to provide themselves the perfect defense. It doesn't matter if my definition of a woman is recursive, inconsistent, unintelligble, and impractical because it provides me with the intended defense: if a woman can't be defined, or can be shown to be undefinable, I win and the category breaks down. This is the bullshit faggotry we're up against and it's important to be able to identify when these tactics are being used.
They don't know shit. It's pure rhetoric. They just say whatever they can to attack you and rebuild the ant mound.
often times its not so simple as 99 to 1. People are prone to taking a 60-40 ratio and exaggerating it to 99-1 just to be able to stop thinking because it becomes "functionally true".
Similarly, people are often too dumb comprehend a third value or a subset. For example, if 99% of X are also Y, they automatically assume 99% of Y are therefore also X, when in reality X only makes up 5% of Y, and the 95% of Y that are not X are instead Z.
This is why I don't subscribe to collectivist solutions. Outcomes are more accurately predicted when the work is done to evaluate people on an individual basis.
It’s fucking hilarious that your comment, along with many others, is literally just “muh exceptions” with extra steps lol
this is how a low iq reacts
Well that's an uphill battle to make because you can say it's as true as you want, but it DOES go against a society that provides equality of opportunity under the law. It's easy to say that in a place like this where we generally agree on like, 75% of the things out there, but that's a really hard to make from a liberty-based standpoint because you are essentially saying half the population cannot participate in the governance of society, even if the laws that are passed may end up affecting them as well.
Again, I understand your argument and I generally agree with it, but I think part of the reason why you get automatic pushback is that you are suggesting something that is outside the Overton window of even most moderates out there. Many of the opinions of the people on this sub are a minority opinion, as much as you all refuse to admit. We just learn to figure out how to present the more palatable parts of our opinion to the rest of society through our discussions. Would any of you walk into a black neighborhood unarmed and yell at the top of your lungs that the 13/50 are violent thugs with no self control? Of course not, you'd get your ass beat or shot (which would prove their point unironically)
What you do is what the left did to slip their far left idpol bs into society, you make suggestions. You point out where the inconsistencies in their argument and try to appeal to their sense of morality. You don't suggest that women should not hold office, you can suggest that perhaps there's been a lot of women being put into DEI positions of power at these companies and these companies are losing money after that, I wonder why?
You got over half the population of the US embracing civic nationalism under the guise of keeping those violent illegal aliens out of the US. I know to some of you that isn't enough and more has to be done, but you don't sperg out in a cafeteria full of American born non-white students who agree with the other 80% of your ideology and proudly yell "Now get rid of the nonwhites". I know some of you fantasize about that shit, don't lie to me.
The fact of the matter is you're essentially telling them Earth revolves around the sun, when all this time they've been indoctrinated to think everything revolved around the Earth. Of course you're going to get pushback when you jump the shark of the Overton window.
But there are exceptions.
Oh, Game Theory stuff? It's not the most possible, but it's still a possibility?
Man, that's such a huge problem. Sharks attack maybe a handful of the millions of people a year, but people are scared to get in a pool because of it. You can make that turn through a bunch of traffic, but it would be easier to slow down and get behind the one guy. Everyone's car can go faster than the speed limit, which doesn't make your car something special. Yes, Orlando has a ton of theme parks, but Seattle doesn't, so they don't think about it very often. Most Germans speak English because it's the easiest way to get rid of Tourists. It might be elves, or it might be all of Iceland has ADHD. School shooters are the same level of happening as shark attacks, so any change is a major percentage.
Yeah, I know.