Dennis Hackethal’s Blog
My blog about philosophy, coding, and anything else that interests me.
Tweets
An archive of my tweets and retweets through . They may be formatted slightly differently than on Twitter. API access has since gotten prohibitively expensive – I don't know whether or when I'll be able to update this archive.
But in case I will, you can subscribe via RSS – without a Twitter account. Rationale
No, knowledge created when playing video games often reaches into the real world.
How would you feel if someone forcibly prevented you from pursuing the activities you enjoy?
More importantly, you're still focusing on what you think children need—not what they want.
And does practicality justify force? I think not.
If the problems children want to solve require reading/writing/match—and sooner or later they will—they will learn those things. There are plenty of resources online, they can get together with friends, seek help voluntarily from people who want to teach them, etc.
It is not true that playing video games "creates nothing." One has to continuously solve problems by creating knowledge as one plays.
What's an activity you enjoy?
I forgot to add something very important: she continues to say that Comte coined the term "to mean, specifically, the placing of the interests of others above your own." youtu.be/7RFlPmjUbRo?t=…
That's exactly what I had in mind with schools. School are altruism machines.
AGIs will be capable of having emotions like all other people—and I'm not sure emotions could be programmed into it. They're something an AGI will evolve in its mind by itself.
I think many experienced critical rationalists understand this deeply—but for me, it was a breakthrough. Though the topic is sad, writing this thread was fun. I’m pursuing my interests right now. I love critical rationalism.
It explains why so many expect their peers to sacrifice their happiness for the health of others by agreeing to house arrests. Why those who don't want their salaries to be cut in half by taxes are considered "evil." Why so many can't begin to imagine a world without coercion.
...quoting Auguste Comte. It explains why people live for other people, and then expect the next generation to do so as well. It’s what they were forced to do during the most formative years of their lives after all!
If school’s main purpose is to teach children how to neglect their own interests and pursue other people’s, that also explains where altruism comes from—the evil doctrine Rand so eloquently refuted and which, she says, “regards man, in effect, as a sacrificial animal”...
I’m thankful that David Deutsch places emphasis on fun and interests. They're hugely underrated.
Parents are often complicit in this. They take away things that their children enjoy, e.g. computer games, or at least put time limits on them—so their kids spend less time doing what they want and more of what they allegedly need, which is determined by anyone but the child.
It is there that they learn that their interests have no chance of leading to anything fruitful, and quickly shut them down.
It is only after 12 years of mind-numbing boredom and neglecting one’s preferences that people voluntarily spend the next 30 years at jobs they hate. It is in school that they learn how to live with problems instead of solving them.
I recently asked a 14 year old close to me if she’d like to go to college. She said no, but that she probably will anyway because she thinks she should. It’s heartbreaking.
One must learn to coerce oneself into neglecting one’s preferences. I think that is what school is really for: not just to standardize children, but to break them, too, to get them to place others’ interests over their own.
What can one possibly do in such a situation to stay sane? One must learn to put one’s interests on the back burner and prioritize other people’s interests—in this case, the teacher’s, and society’s at large.
So the child wants to learn about astronomy—but doesn’t get to. Instead, he is coerced to learn other things he isn’t interested in. Day in, day out, for some 12 years. As Popper said, he has to learn answers to questions he didn’t ask.
Consider a child who is interested in, say, astronomy. There are no elementary-school classes about astronomy. And even if there were, it is highly unlikely that every child will happen to be interested in everything shoved down his throat every year, at just the right time.
That's static-society stuff. But I’m starting to see that it goes deeper than that.
It is generally believed that schools exist to help children learn. Of course, we CR folks know that’s baloney. Instead, we understand—thanks to TCS—that schools exist to standardize children—to replicate society’s memes as faithfully as possible under threat of punishment.
The other day, it “clicked” for me: I think I understand better now what schools are really for.
A thread of conjectures 👇
And something China didn't do either. @WatchRatio
"Sinophobic" is such a lazy, blanket response meant to shut down dissent and signal one's moral superiority at the same time. As if criticism of China's policies implied hatred of their people.
I recently learned that in Germany, lockdown skepticism is immediately associated with far-right extremism. It’s weird.
Gross. You’d think that with all the destruction around, there would have been other priorities.
@parkerm @ReachChristofer @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat @ToKTeacher
While unfortunately not everything written about me is true, I think it's important to make sure the credit for the ideas that supported my work is clear. Borrowed ideas have since been attributed thoroughly, clearly and in-text. I hope this helps and you enjoy my book!
@parkerm @ReachChristofer @reasonisfun @Crit_Rat @ToKTeacher
Hi, thanks for asking. I took this very seriously and did a meticulous, line-by-line review of my book after carefully reading these comments, with the gracious help and support from other CRists (who shall remain nameless to protect them from any potential retaliation).
@jpr41411 @MichaelPSenger @naomirwolf
High copying fidelity is a property of memes that are good at spreading. Hence the semantic identity. Agreed that it's chilling.
.@codinghorror When I see websites using SVGs for company logos, my heart beats a little bit faster.
RT @CodeWisdom:
🧞♂️ "A computer is like a mischievous genie. It will give you exactly what you ask for, but not always what you want." — J…
Those screenshots are interesting, because the phrasing is different in all of them, from what I can tell, whereas in previous examples the wording was always pretty much the same. Did the bots get more eloquent or are they actually people?
And if something is 50% likely to happen, that’s also a statement of fact.
Those are epistemological claims. They’re false. There are facts, and there are likelihoods. Nothing can infallibly be proven true or false.
If there weren’t any facts, one couldn’t understand your tweet as a statement of fact either—though presumably it was intended as such.
Learn Clojure. Build things you haven’t built before.
You use big terms and complicated sentence structure. Why not use clear and simple language that is easier to criticize? Care to rephrase that?
I think if our knowledge grows, we recognize more problems, meaning there are more challenges. Are you suggesting that progress justifies bigger government?
Here's an alternative I would prefer: Biden and Harris completely stay out of healthcare and let Americans manage their health by themselves. They can issue actual guidances if they like, but they SHOULD NOT coerce people.
Also, his COVID task force is supposed to become a permanent institution. Goes to show that government tends to grow, not shrink.
This is all the kind of stuff I was worried was going to happen under a Biden presidency. Then again, president-elects lie all the time about their grand visions. One can hope that he won't be able to do any of this.
"COVID-19 Racial and Ethnic Disparities Task Force" is woke nonsense creeping into socialist medical planning.
"Evidence-based guidance" is really evidence-based coercion. Bad epistemology -> coercive measures
"Implement mask mandates nationwide by working with governors and mayors and by asking the American people to do what they do best: step up in a time of crisis."
"mandates" is NOT "asking"
"At the end of this health crisis, it will transition to a permanent Infectious Disease Racial Disparities Task Force."
He also wants to "establish a COVID-19 Racial and Ethnic Disparities Task Force, as proposed by Vice President-elect Harris, to provide recommendations and oversight on disparities in the public health and economic response."
Biden plans to enact "evidence-based guidance for [...] when to open or close certain businesses [and] when to issue stay-at-home restrictions."
@__adamjohnson_
You're right—I changed it from "likewise" to "in other words."
I’ve written more about this here: blog.dennishackethal.com/2020/11/08/bal…
Legislation forcing companies to have boards or workforces representative of the general populace is not only counterproductive, but mathematically impossible. Read why:
The ends don’t justify the means. You can advise people to stay home without forcing them to stay home. No coercion required (nor morally ok).
... one valid hiring strategy: qualification. But to those who think representation in the workforce is important, surely being mathematically proven wrong will change their minds?
Due to these paradoxes, wokesters who demand hiring practices that result in workforces "representative" of the general populace are contradicting themselves. Of course, those of us who are individualists and don't believe in group grievances already know that there is only...
... i.e. an employee of one color whose population has grown being replaced by an employee of another color whose population has shrunken, all in the name of "representativeness." Alabama paradox also applies, as should all others.
In Balinski & Young's theorem, replace "state" with, say, "race," and "seats" with, say, "no. of employees." There is no "apportionment rule" that companies could follow that doesn't result in a population paradox...
Update—I think there is, even within a single dimension (as long as there are three or more alternatives): math.stackexchange.com/questions/3898…
Correction: that's actually Arrow's theorem, not Balinski & Young's.
Don't forget filling out form dreifachzeitmachgutnichtschmaken 55a and normfüllhalterdreieckbahnbekundungszuschlag 19.
@SamHarrisOrg @wakingup @10percent @calm @Headspace
"very stressful moment" reminds me of San Franciscans in 2016 having "healing parties."
@ToKTeacher @bnielson01 @HeuristicAndy @DavidDeutschOxf @reasonisfun
"What could?" Neo-Darwinism could be falsified “if an organism was observed to undergo only (or mainly) favourable mutations” or “[i]f organisms were observed to be born with new, complex adaptations – for anything – of which there were no precursors in their parents” BoI ch. 4
@HeuristicAndy @DavidDeutschOxf @ToKTeacher @reasonisfun
This may help: ncse.ngo/what-did-karl-…
Many successful people give to charities to "give back." But they never took anything in the first place!
People like Steve Jobs, through the production and marketing of computers, have done way more to lift people out of poverty than charities, without even trying to do that.
Charity is overrated. It doesn't create anything new—it's just a transfer of existing wealth and is a zero-sum game. Trade, on the other hand, results in the creation of value for both parties.
I suspect for other items, the factor is even starker. How much would someone have to pay you never to use clothes again? Or salt? Or cars?
Let's say people spend an average of $10,000 on computers in a lifetime. Those $10,000 are effectively worth $10 million to them and computers outperform their cost 1000x.
I had a sense that this would be the result, but it's still worth thinking about what it means. For one, it means that computers are extremely valuable. For two, it means that entrepreneurship is much more helpful to people than even extremely generous charity.
“Sie sind beide in Brüssel untergetaucht und haben dort überlebt.” ??
Looks like he’ll need to win all of Fla, Ga, Iowa, mich, nc, nev, Ohio, and Texas if Biden gets the remainder. Doable. But if he loses a single one of those, he loses overall.
Not according to politico.com/2020-election/… if Biden wins all remaining states.
School kids in France stood for a minute of silence to acknowledge the beheading of Samuel Paty by an islamist terrorist.
"A minute of silence means nothing if it’s forced. If we’re serious about freedom, we need to stop forcing kids to go to school."
Macron is doing the right thing standing up to islamists—unfortunately, it's ironic that children are learning about freedom in a classroom setting they are forced to attend.
Would you accept $10 million on condition that you never use any computer ever again (including smart phones, tablets etc)?
What are the consequences for Newsom and the CA government as a whole? Do they at least have to pay damages?
It’s a great day for California!! twitter.com/KevinKileyCA/s…
@MatjazLeonardis @DavidDeutschOxf
Then again, we’re not after justification, so maybe this isn’t such a big problem?
RT @DavidDeutschOxf:
@richard_landes @SamHarrisOrg
Don't analyse it as a policy, where it is obviously nonsense. Analyse it as a general-pu…
To be clear, I'm not looking to weigh pros against cons. I'm looking for a single con that would refute the entire thing.
RT @MurraySuggests:
“Whenever someone starts talking about 'fair competition' or indeed, about 'fairness' in general, it is time to keep a…
“It’s about giving people the resources and the help they need...” doesn’t that sound lovely! If only she shed light on the theft and violence that are silently happening to “give people what they need.”
The idea may not explicitly encode that feature, but it's part of its reach (albeit a bad kind of reach). And yes, I think that for some ideas, it's the associations that make it troublesome.
This casts doubt on the possibility of persuading you with outcomes alone, as there may always be "other potential benefits" you can mention. It would be better to pinpoint and offer one specific criticism that would definitely change your mind.
@cziscience @ChanZuckerberg @WatchRatio
This whole account is a social-justice treasure chest.
Whenever an idea seems so obviously true that you cannot imagine yourself possibly finding a flaw with it—when it makes you think that it must be true—that in itself is a flaw with the idea.
@tiffanyiwaddell @podia @WatchRatio
coach offering services to recruit and promote based on skin color
To illustrate this point, imagine you eat cake all day and never exercise. If somebody then forces you to eat healthier and exercise every day, you'll get in better shape (i.e. better outcome). But forcing you would still be wrong and the better outcome doesn't make up for that.
Also, outcomes aren't everything. The methodology matters, too. For example, coercive methodologies should be avoided in favor of non-coercive methodologies.
What about if someone convinces you that income inequality and consolidation of power aren't bad per se? Would change your mind about UBI, too?
Affected by corporate wokeism? Here are some tips on how to counter it:
To be clear, if that's what you were referring to, the fact that UBI wouldn't alleviate poverty by printing money is true even if printing money is not coercive.
In any case, have you given any thought to how one could change your mind and get you to reject UBI?
Ok but I don't think you've refuted the notion that printing money is theft. And if it's theft it's still coercion.
Assuming that printing money is not theft, printing money does not create wealth because the USD is not a consumer good, and so it won't help abolish poverty.