#also alternates are infohazard

[u5an5]

I can’t believe it.

The whole series is named Mandela Catalogue and I've seen anyone mention Mandela effect once???

For those who don’t know yet, “The Mandela effect, sometimes referred to as the Mandela phenomenon, is an instance of false collective memory.”, which basically translates as multiple (anywhere between two and few thousands if not milions) people having the same incorrect memory about something.

“This phenomenon was dubbed the "Mandela effect" by paranormal researcher Fiona Broome, who reported having vivid and detailed memories of news coverage of South African anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela dying in prison in the 1980s, despite Mandela actually dying in 2013 after serving as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999. Broome reported that, since 2010, "perhaps thousands" of other people had written online about having the same memory of Mandela's death[...].”

I’m just gonna drop speculations why it happens:

“Scientists suggest that these are examples of false memories shaped by similar cognitive factors affecting multiple people and families, such as social and cognitive reinforcement of incorrect memories or false news reports and misleading photographs that influence the formation of memories based on them.”

I don’t have enough brain power to keep digging into this rabbit hole rn, so here's the article I cited things from and here's a page about it on TvTropes, where you can find more examples from different media. And pls, @ me if you have any other ideas or theories abt it. Or just MC cannon theories.

[pazodetrasalba]

Invisible Hand

Dear Caroline:

Robin Hanson seems to be, from what I have been able to gleam, a slightly heretical type of rationalist, mainly in the form of being all too willing to step into minefields, hornet's nests and infohazards. I have found his blog posts always interesting, whether or not I found myself agreeing or disagreeing with them, and a search for truth, including unpopular ones, is something I can always condone. This month I bought 'The Elephant in the Brain', and I hope to be reading it in 2024. Besides, I've seen that it was actually also present in your 'to read' list at goodreads.

I get that EAs and Rationalists are really keen on prediction markets, and speculation and scrutiny about possible futures and existential risks, and I've got Tetlock also waiting in the bookshelf (you didn't seem to value his book very highly, though), but -outside perspective- the track record for predictions seems so utterly hopeless as feel like a complete waste of time. This might not be the case, though, in very specialized and minute areas with great amounts of information and clever modelers. In fact, one could say this is precisely what finance is all about.

I find it quaint that you find Hanson's posting quaint! I can almost envision a sort condescending and jaded smile on your lips that would arise in the following tableaux:

-Person who is not a finance bro makes a case for a self-evident truth that is at the axiomatic foundations of the field: markets are right 99% of the time

-You, sitting in a comfy sofa, a nice glass of something in your hand and a glint of fun in eyes and lips: Ah, yes. But that 1% is not only real, it is also where we make our money from.

I am not too interested in this specific market of a forgotten politician's chance at being nominated, but I would say this: the truism of market efficiency needs to be explained more and better to the younger generations. I remember hearing about the Invisible Hand as a teenager, and it seemed so self evidently stupid and false, and too imbued with quasi-religious, absurd imagery - little jump from an invisible hand to a invisible God. Emergent properties and specific examples would have worked better than Adam Smith's metaphor, and made other alternatives seem less good. Teenager's mind can be easily caught by plausible explanations - Marxism's starting thesis of history as class warfare and wage labour as exploitation felt that way when I encountered them, and once you've got one solid foot in, the other more jagged pieces can easily fall into place.

Quote:

Every individual... neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it... he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

Adam Smith

[somnilogical]

modular "ethics":

a wrong and two rights make a right

<<I've been known to cause outrage by suggesting that people who really care about something shouldn't have romantic relationships. Think what would happen if I dared to suggest that those people should also seriously consider getting castrated. That would be crazy! And who am I to suggest that basically everyone claiming to be doing good is faking it? Then people would feel bad about themselves. We can't have that!>>

https://squirrelinhell.blogspot.com/2018/02/men-have-women-are.html

previously i talked about an infohazard about altruism that seemed to fuck with grognor. it feels useful to pass by the dead and look at their lives and choices.

i dont think that castrating yourself is a good intervention for doing stuff you care about, like this is patchwork constraints for an unaligned optimizer. if you arent altruistically aligned from core values, castrating yourself wont make you more aligned.

the "altruists" having babies thing is actual insane and pasek is right about that. pretty much all of society will try and gaslight you about this the way sometimes people are gaslit about "i need to have sex with lots of attractive fems to keep up my moral so i can do super good stuff afterwards.". like if people want to do good for the world it will flow out as a continuous expression of value not some brent dill kind of deal that institutions like CFAR accepted until there was too much social pressure for them to maintain this facade.

the entire premise that morality is this modular thing and you can help set the utility function of an FAI while being a terrible person, is wrong. yet organizations like CFAR keep thinking it will work out for them:

<<We believe that Brent is fundamentally oriented towards helping people grow to be the best versions of themselves. In this way he is aligned with CFAR’s goals and strategy and should be seen as an ally.

  In particular, Brent is quite good at breaking out of standard social frames and making use of unconventional techniques and strategies. This includes things that have Chesterton’s fences attached, such as drug use, weird storytelling, etc. A lot of his aesthetic is dark, and this sometimes makes him come across as evil or machiavellian.

  Brent also embodies a rare kind of agency and sense of heroic responsibility. This has caused him to take the lead in certain events and be an important community hub and driver. The flip side of this is that because Brent is deeply insecure, he has to constantly fight urges to seize power and protect himself. It often takes costly signalling for him to trust that someone is an ally, and even then it’s shaky.

  Brent is a controversial figure, and disliked by many. This has led to him being attacked by many and held to a higher standard than most. In these ways his feelings of insecurity are justified. He also has had a hard life, including a traumatic childhood. Much of the reason people don’t like him comes from a kind of intuition or aesthetic feeling, rather than his actions per se.

  Brent’s attraction to women (in the opinion of the council) sometimes interferes with his good judgement. Brent knows that his judgement is sometimes flawed, and has often sought the help of others to check his actions. Whether or not this kind of social binding is successful is not obvious.>>

https://pastebin.com/fzwYfDNq

<<AnnaSalamon 2/6/09, 5:54 AM

Aleksei, I don’t know what you think about the current existential risks situation, but that situation changed me in the direction of your comment. I used to think that to have a good impact on the world, you had to be an intrinsically good person. I used to think that the day to day manner in which I treated the people around me, the details of my motives and self-knowledge, etc. just naturally served as an indicator for the positive impact I did or didn’t have on global goodness.

(It was a dumb thing to think, maintained by an elaborate network of rationalizations that I thought of as virtuous, much the way many people think of their political “beliefs”/clothes as virtuous. My beliefs were also maintained by not bothering to take an actually careful look either at global catastrophic risks or even at the details of e.g. global poverty. But my impression is that it’s fairly common to just suppose that our intuitive moral self-evaluations (or others’ evaluations of how good of people we are) map tolerably well onto actual good consequences.)

Anyhow: now, it looks to me as though most of those “good people”, living intrinsically worthwhile lives, aren’t contributing squat to global goodness compared to what they could contribute if they spent even a small fraction of their time/money on a serious attempt to shut up and multiply. The network of moral intuitions I grew up in is… not exactly worthless; it does help with intrinsically worthwhile lives, and, more to the point, with the details of how to actually build the kinds of reasonable human relationships that you need for parts of the “shut up and multiply”-motivated efforts to work… but, for most people, it’s basically not very connected to how much good they do or don’t do in the world. If you like, this is good news: for a ridiculously small sum of effort (e.g., a $500 donation to SIAI; the earning power of seven ten-thousandths of your life if you earn the US minimum wage), you can do more expected-good than perhaps 99.9% of Earth’s population. (You may be able to do still more expected-good by taking that time and thinking carefully about what most impacts global goodness and whether anyone’s doing it.)>>

https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/4pov2tL6SEC23wrkq/epilogue-atonement-8-8

like opposing this isnt self-denying moral aestheticism or a signalling game of how good you can look (credibly signalling virtue is actually a good thing, i wish more people did it by for instance demonstrating how they win in a way that wouldnt work if they werent aligned. whose power seeded from their alignment.). its like... the alternative where people do things that it makes no sense for an altruist to do and then say that when they go to their day jobs they are super duper altruistic they swear; compartmentalizing in this way ...doesnt actually work.

people who want to obscure what altruism looks like will claim that this is moving around a social schelling point for who is to be ostracized. and that altruism as a characteristic of a brain isnt a cluster-in-reality that you can talk about. because it will be coopted by malicious actors as a laser to unjustly zap people with. these people are wrong.

both EA and CFAR are premised on some sort of CDT modular morality working. it is actually pretending to do CDT optimization because like with brent at each timestep they are pretending to think "how can we optimize utility moving forward?" (really i suspect they are just straight up mindcontrolled by brent, finding ways to serve their master because they used force and the people at CFAR were bad at decision theory) instead of seeking to be agents such that brent when brents plans to predate on people ran through them, he would model it as more trouble than it was worth and wouldnt do this in the first place.

CFAR and EA will do things like allowing someone to predate on women because they are "insightful" or creating a social reality where people with genetic biases who personally devote massive amounts of time and money to babies who happen to be genetically related to them and then in their day job act "altruistically". as long as it all adds up to net positive, its okay right?

but thats not how it works and structures built off of this are utterly insufficient to bring eutopia to sentient life. in just the same way that "scientists" who when they arent at their day jobs are theists are an utterly insufficient to bring eutopia to sentient life.

<<Maybe we can beat the proverb—be rational in our personal lives, not just our professional lives. We shouldn’t let a mere proverb stop us: “A witty saying proves nothing,” as Voltaire said. Maybe we can do better, if we study enough probability theory to know why the rules work, and enough experimental psychology to see how they apply in real-world cases—if we can learn to look at the water. An ambition like that lacks the comfortable modesty of being able to confess that, outside your specialty, you’re no better than anyone else. But if our theories of rationality don’t generalize to everyday life, we’re doing something wrong. It’s not a different universe inside and outside the laboratory.>>

--

to save the world it doesnt help to castrate yourself and make extra super sure not to have babies. people's values are already what they are, their choices have already been made. these sort of ad-hoc patches are what wrangling an unaligned agent looks like. and the output of an unaligned agent with a bunch of patches, isnt worth much. would you delegate important tasks to an unaligned AI that was patched up after each time it gave a bad output?

it does mean that if after they know about the world and what they can do, people still say that they specifically should have babies, i mark them as having a kind of damage and route around them.

someone not having babies doesnt automatically mark them as someone id pour optimization energy into expecting it to combine towards good ends. the metrics i use are cryptographically secure from being goodharted. so i can talk openly about traits i use to discern between people without worrying about people reading about this and using it to gum up my epistemics.

[somnilogical]

transgenderer: okay so you know the trope where when you get too much eldritch knowledge and suddenly you start seeing giant monsters everywhere that are invisible to everyone else? that’s what being a trans woman is like.

this cluster of abilities keeps being instrumentally useful to model for reasoning about transfems. promethea and bendini independently talked about this:

[08:56] Bendini: This sounds like parody, but with californians it is difficult to tell

[image of fb post:

Daniel Powell: That report claims both that all entrances were blocked and also that a police vehicle entered and exited the camp; was that because the police vehicle was capable of offoad movement that typical vehicles are incapable of? My heart goes out to the kids on the high course who were subjected to unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering as a result of seeing people in Guy Fawkes masks, and all the people who had their personal liberty violated.

Like Reply 11h]

[09:02] Bendini: also this is a lot less credible if you haven't forgotten what happened with Brent

[09:02] Bendini: regardless of whether Anna is secretly a transphobe

[09:03] Bendini: rather than just scared of one particular trans person

[09:03] Bendini: the same sort of defence was trotted out for brent, and he was guilty

[09:05] Bendini: yeah, ziz is crazy and a lot of stuff posted is just ramblings

[09:06] Bendini: but I can see the model of everyone being sufficiently cowardly that the crazy bring forward the accusations before the courageous do

[09:23] promethea: gotta love how nobody can quite agree exactly how the people involved are Bad and Evil but people are nonetheless confident that they are schizophrenic/narcissistic/abusers/violent and must be confined and put on chemical mind control

[image of fb post:

Romeo Stevens: I'd recommend whomever has comparative advantage to familiarize themselves with the narcissism/bpd/aspd cluster, more evocatively called energy vampires. Such people are not stable and can grow violent when they are deprived attention they believe they are entitled to. The book Character Disturbance is fairly good for a start. It is a known falilure mode for communities of people who have faced their own social isolation to fail at filtering. To be clear, such people deserve compassion, but they need professional help. They don't benefit from a bunch of people whose time is valuable (one of the reasons they are attracted to such people because more validation) paying attention to their narratives.

9h Edited]

[09:24] promethea: there's been an awful lot of "not saying, but just saying" of a type that screams of monkeyball hysteria and attacking any characteristics that can be painted as vulnerabilities open for attack

[09:26] promethea: (also Ben the reason why you find Ziz's blog full of "just ramblings" is that you have a particular neurotype that is very... I don't have a good value-neutral way of expressing the difference but maybe "mundane" as opposed to "eldritch")

[09:35] Bendini: yeah the idea of someone saying get professional help is a strong sign they have not thought through what they are saying

[09:36] Bendini: like, a quick glance at what professional mental health treatment looks like in the US (therapy in the UK is afaik good for low hanging fruit, but not much else)

[09:37] Bendini: "these people should be reported to the mental health authoritities to be dealt with"

[09:37] Bendini: "Uhhh, I mean get the compassion they need"

[09:38] Bendini: I have to say, you would be the first person in the history of ever to call my neurotype mundane

[09:39] Bendini: I see what you are getting at

[09:39] Bendini: but it is like, how many standard deviations of weirdness are you on

[09:39] Bendini: and I said most, not all

[09:40] promethea: I think it's more like what direction your weirdness is in; "grounded" or "basic bitch" were other words I considered

[09:40] promethea: it's similar to the difference between EAs who want to find out how to best help the global poor, and the ones who get very preoccupied over whether insecticides are causing catastrophic suffering

[09:43] Bendini: "tethered to reality, somehow" would be an alternative

[09:45] Bendini: I think it's due to having like 50% really normie emotions

[09:45] promethea: "tethered to consensus reality" is how I'd adjust that phrasing

[09:46] promethea: it may be something to do with a sense that the world is fundamentally sane but just really bad at its job, vs the world being fundamentally insane and only aligned with the actual reality by little more than grace of gnon

[09:49] promethea: and probably some kind of a fundamental unshakeable-to-barely-shakeable prior rather than something that responds to ordinary reasoning

[09:50] Bendini: what do we mean by fundementally sane vs insane here?

[09:51] promethea: good catch, that's a nightmare to unpack

[09:53] promethea: a lot of the early LW stuff is comparatively eldritch in this sense, especially for the context of not having had LW yet

[09:56] promethea: in an environment where being trans isn't normal trans people have a certain inherent eldritch-ness, but a person fitting neatly into a third gender social role in a culture where that has always been a thing is not eldritch in that way

[09:57] promethea: it's the difference between "other people are trying their best even if their best isn't that good" vs. "other people are systematically gaslighting you about everything until proven otherwise"

[10:01] Bendini: ah

[10:02] Bendini: I'd put the difference down to people being really really crap at explaining things because the message is in there but it's between the lines

[10:02] Bendini: not intentionally, but because they don't know how else to do it

[10:03] promethea: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sYgv4eYH82JEsTD34/beyond-the-reach-of-god this is probably the most explicit work by EY on what I've been calling the eldritch

[10:04] Bendini: and if you don't have enough of the fuzzy experience knowledge to do it, following what they are saying will be experienced as gaslighting

[10:04] promethea: and specifically, Beyond the Reach of God is trying to shake a component of the fundamental sense of security and move people towards the eldritch side

[10:05] Bendini: this sounds like the fundamental autist experience which cleaves into paranoia or extreme submissiveness to authority

[10:08] promethea:

I'd put the difference down to people being really really crap at explaining things because the message is in there but it's between the lines

not intentionally, but because they don't know how else to do it

and if you don't have enough of the fuzzy experience knowledge to do it, following what they are saying will be experienced as gaslighting

I'm thinking more of the thing about "seek professional help"

[10:09] Bendini: the yud post does not

[10:09] promethea: a mundane interpretation is "professional help isn't actually that helpful but I don't know that" while an eldritch interpretation is like "these people should be reported to the mental health authoritities to be dealt with"

[10:09] Bendini: as I'm rereading it

[10:10] Bendini: I do not believe the world is just

[10:10] Bendini: or that things will work out fine in the end because they always do

[10:11] Bendini: given, y'know, that I used to be a prepper

[10:15] Bendini: also I may have figured out how to reconcile "anna is a transphobe and admitted it outright" with what has been said

[10:16] Bendini: which I suspect pete knows based on what he said, but he doesn't say it outright

[10:18] promethea: "eldritch" isn't about just-world beliefs, it's closer to "a quality that makes one faster to disalieve things like just-world or other aspects of consensus reality"

[10:21] Bendini: I think there's some conflation between beleif in verbal consensus reality and belief that you can anticipate what other people will do probabalistically

[10:22] Bendini: I do not beleive in the former, but I think I had enough natural talent at the latter to reach a kind of escape velocity

[10:24] Bendini: i.e. have enough to build on/enough peices of the jigsaw put in that I could keep filling it in

[10:26] promethea: it's not about "eldritch means you can't model other people"

[10:29] promethea: if anything, mundane models are the ones that are sacrificing modeling ability

[10:30] promethea: ...seeing patterns where people insist is only noise but that noise just so happens to be awfully conveniently shaped...

[10:30] Bendini: if I am defined as the non-eldridch side, this sounds like something that could be falsified

[10:31] promethea: I'm feeling like this is a beautiful meta-level illustration of the difference between the neurotypes but way less useful on the object level or to someone who doesn't already have an unspeakable sense of what the difference is

[10:33] promethea: I don't know how to get the qualia across to someone who doesn't already have the thing and be thus able to possibly grok it from what I'm vaguely gesturing at

[10:34] Bendini: is there a way to demonstrate information transmission between 2 eldridch people?

[10:36] promethea: ziz's blog has a lot of content that makes perfect sense to people who have a quality that's probably strongly aligned with eldritch, but apparently looks like ramblings to people who don't

[10:38] promethea: some things are just ordinarily difficult to understand in that they require a lot of work, while others are actually mind-bending to properly comprehend, and eldritch minds are more bendy in that way?

[10:41] promethea: which also increases vulnerability to infohazards, cognitohazards, overfitting, demonic possession and generally going nuts, but the idea that eldritch is inherently less sane only applies to socioculturally mediated definitions of sanity

[10:42] Bendini: my immidiate reaction to "socioculturally mediated definitions of sanity" was "yes, and creditworthyness is a social construct"

[10:43] promethea: if reality is less well-matched with consensus reality then the bendiness of eldritch minds means that they can more easily construct accurate maps of the territory

[10:44] Bendini: can you think of a way to compare viewing that map to the territory?

[10:44] Bendini: as in, not being able to show the map is a given

[10:45] Bendini: but the outputs of the map

[10:47] promethea: seeing power, seeing prejudice and bias, seeing other things polite society pretends aren't real...

[10:49] promethea: and it's polite society all the way down

[10:49] Bendini: that's not really what I meant

[10:50] Bendini: I mean for example, using the ability to see those things to predict other things in a way that can be isolated from fuzzy confirmation bias

[10:51] Bendini: like I can very much believe ziz's blog is relatable and intuitive to you

[10:52] Bendini: and you have to do less interpretive labour to get a true insight from it

[10:53] Bendini: but the thing I'm pointing at as ramblings is seperate from that

[10:58] promethea: would it make sense if I rephrased it as "less cognitive filtering"? being able to see more signal in noise, especially where the signals are something you aren't supposed to be seeing for some reason or another, but at the cost that you're more likely to see signals where there is only noise

[11:02] Bendini: that makes sense

[11:03] Bendini: but it assumes that all people who don't do the eldrich thing can't go down the abstraction ladder

[11:04] promethea:

can't go down the abstraction ladder

can you elaborate?

[11:04] Bendini: what is salient to someone isn't completely a choice

[11:05] Bendini: but what you notice is based on what you've learned is useful to pay attention to

[11:07] Bendini: I could say something about forests leaves and trees

[11:07] Bendini: but it would be a bit cliche

[11:08] Bendini: something that might sink in would be more like someone paying attention to what is going on at the binary level as bits are moving between the hard drive memory and cpu

[11:09] Bendini: yes, it is useful to know what is going on so you understand other things

[11:10] Bendini: but hyperfixating on that while you are writing code on a much higher level of abstraction

[11:10] Bendini: in a sense, you are "seeing things that others have been trained not to see"

[11:10] Bendini: or don't understand

[11:10] Bendini: but doing that on a frame by frame level rather than an intutive "you know what's up" kinda level

[11:11] Bendini: is going to result in glaring errors from the stuff you aren't paying enough attention to

[11:15] promethea: it's not autism except possibly to the degree that autism weakens one's priors

[11:16] Bendini: agree, there are plenty of basic bitch autists

[11:17] Bendini: but like, the autistic catgirl cluster

[11:18] Bendini: it is a recurring pattern that some of them obsess over social reality in the way ziz does, yet keep getting into abusive relationships which were predictable from the outset

[11:18] Bendini: which idk, maybe this is a bit of a basic bitch take here

[11:19] Bendini: but this seems like the opposite of what should happen if they had reached the higher plane of knowledge that cannot be explained in words

[11:20] promethea: I'm not expecting all men to be able to do twenty pull-ups just because testosterone improves upper body strength

[11:22] promethea: the "eldritch" neurotype might also be called "psychoticism" but in the sense of a personality trait like extroversion and not in the sense of mental illness

[11:22] Bendini: no, but if those men claim to be much stronger because they have the magical testosterone elixir

[11:22] Bendini: and they keep getting beaten up by 5ft anorexic girls

[11:23] Bendini: at what point do you say "no, you do not have the thing you claim to have"

[11:30] promethea: no what I've been trying to say is that there appears to be a neurotype-level difference in how people process some types of information with predictable (in terms of not requiring loads of epicycles) upsides (having an easier time making accurate models where they contradict consensus reality) and downsides (having an easier time making inaccurate models where they contradict consensus reality)

[11:30] Bendini: the psychotiticism framing does help explain part of it

[11:31] Bendini: but that feels like the motte

[11:31] Bendini: it's the bailey I have trouble with

[11:31] promethea: I can't comment on the precise situation with the Bay catgirls because I'm not familiar enough with it to feel comfortable making non-obvious inferences

[11:33] Bendini: okay

[11:33] Bendini: I wonder how my experiences with psychedelics map into this though

[11:34] promethea: a bit of a shitpost-y formulation might be that high psychoticism-as-a-personality-trait is like having the safety guards off the [insert power tool that best fits the analogy] of your mind; it makes it easier to make some cuts that you'd otherwise struggle with, but it also makes it easier to cut things you wouldn't actually want to cut like yourself

[11:34] promethea: psychedelics would be expected to increase psychoticism-as-a-personality-trait

[11:35] Bendini: you'd expect them to do it while on them though

[11:35] promethea: both temporarily (very strongly) and permanently (from what it seems)

[11:35] Bendini: I seem to get neither in some important ways

[11:36] Bendini: like certain kinds of art and music

[11:36] Bendini: it was a sanity check of sorts

[11:37] promethea: (this also fits with my experience that when my dopamine levels are increased I get better at the thinks but also more likely to be overconfidently wrong, and that most antipsychotics are dopamine antagonists, etc.)

[11:38] Bendini: if I cannot see mediocre art as anything more than mediocre art while I'm hallucinating, it really isn't a case of me not being open to it

[11:39] Bendini: it's a case of wine in expensive bottles

[11:40] Bendini: I do think I have had some changes though

[11:40] Bendini: more sympathy to points of view people cannot express verbally

[11:46] promethea: I don't think "finding deep meaning in mediocre art" is any kind of a necessary characteristic of increased PAAPT (psychoticism-as-a-you-know-what), especially given that "mediocre art actually has deep meaning when on drugs" is the social reality

[13:28] Bendini: I mean more the ability to be open minded and see the beauty in things

[13:28] Bendini: because I could totally see the beauty of a brick wall

[13:28] Bendini: just some girl showed me her pretty mediocre drawings

[13:29] Bendini: and I was pretty speechless because the mediocrity was the salient characteristic

[13:30] Bendini: I find it suspends judgement for a longer period

[13:31] Bendini: but when my mind speaks out to me my concience is much louder

[13:32] Bendini: this does not seem to be the standard reaction to psychadelics

[13:32] Bendini: the basic bitch lurks deep in my lizard brain

(dont agree with all of promethea's characterization of the phenomena; but its clearly seeded from looking at the same phenomena that i am. bendini does not get whats going on at all here.)

ive referenced leveraging this to do what seems impossible or unpredictable to normies as creepy transfem mind powers. then people are like 'saraaah ccc somni said trans women have creepy mind powers thats crazy talk right?' and sarah c's like 'well yes its true trans women have a high iq'.

but this is kind of eliding over different kinds of intelligence as neurotypes and collapsing it all into "iq". transfems and ashkies arent just generically "intelligent" theres specific neurotypes behind the inteligence. like for ashkies the sort of things that get recorded in metrics are high "verbal" iq and "math" iq and average "spatial" iq. thats a specífic signature.

see: http://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf

"high intelligence" can look like hyperlexia and it can also look like dissociative mind powers that let people see through the matrix and be unnervingly good at reasoning over embeddings of yourself.

like as intelligence increases, general capacity at solving problems increases. but maybe you shunt symbols instead of rotate objects to solves a problem. which affects what kinds of problems you can easily solve, given some are more amiable to one approach over another. there are many instances where visual proofs without words are much shorter than doing lots of algebra and vice-versa.

these specificities allow high-inteligence subpopulations to collude within neuroclades along these lines of similarity. downstream of this is that a lot of ppl accuse both jews and transfems of conspiracy and being "friends" with each other when a lot of mutual information comes from neurotype similarity not meeting and deciding on a plan. (thats not to say, you know, that there are never meetings about how to take over the multiverse...)

its amusing how like transfems will talk with each other about stuff and then ppl will be like "arghh!!! my eyes! this writing is painful static! its an infohazard!! its a glitch in the matrix!! AIEEEEGYRGHLSMERGLEGLunk pshhhur" and then say they dont understand what you are saying but it probably means you are a creepy violent misogynistic deeply sick male who is experiencing a psychotic break or something. give me tokens of submission to prove me wrong. if you were really prosocial youd drop this act right now and "act like a human".

part of the reason im writing this is reading things like:

<<promethea: gotta love how nobody can quite agree exactly how the people involved are Bad and Evil but people are nonetheless confident that they are schizophrenic/narcissistic/abusers/violent and must be confined and put on chemical mind control>>

has a healing quality. like i independently derived this. people keep trying to erase these simple shapes of how things fit together. try to destroy peoples ability to build common knowledge and talk with each other. the authoritarians dont usually try to give good excuses about why they pretend its wrong besides saying "its absurd". when you are in a prison planet surrounded mostly by people who have decided to be cops or submit to them, reading this is like:

https://youtu.be/DSTknzzBT9Y

you have to fractally reason through warpy things like people distantly noting "patient appears to be suffering from delusions of persecution'. and people trying to tell you that you are psychotic when like hi im writing this and not "psychotic". and you dont even have the social reality of people doing actual info-processing and at the end saying "well yeah its pretty obvious you arent suffering from a psychotic break, weird that anyone would claim that".

what you have is people giving you strange looks and acting like what youve written is a tear in the fabric of reality releasing trillions of shrill screams from a place beyond time.

its not because they dont understand, its because they have chosen not to. with different social groups of humans, different things elicit this response. like in a plural server i joined i talked about maybe there could be something in between being plural and being a singlet and they acted like id spoken static until someone said "oh thats [short handle for this concept]" and then everyone relaxed and stopped acting as if they couldnt understand what i was saying because there was no longer any local social threat to dynamically processing this information in front of other humans. they learned from the exclaimer that it was a Thing in their culture.

when people cant anticipate a priori where dynamically processing information in front of a lot of people will land them wrt the local overton window, as a solution they will just refuse to do this. one way to refuse to do this is to say "im sorry i dont understand what you are saying its like painful static. ack! stop trying to explain i dont want to understand it might turn me evil or something!!" which is an accurate assessment if they were coerced into using the words good and evil to mean alignment and disalignment with local social consensus respectively.

like the strategy of people who want to contain those floricdly hemorrhaging eldritch knowledge all over the place is to have a constarnt investment of authoritarian power to suppress this:

<<Reject invest-y power. Some kinds of power increase your freedom. Some other kinds require an ongoing investment of your time and energy, and explode if you fail to provide it. The second kind binds you, and ultimately forces you to give up your values. The second kind is also easier, and you'll be tempted all the time.>>

https://squirrelinhell.blogspot.com/2018/01/superhuman-meta-process.html

unlike true things which will keep reforming and can be lazily evaluated from looking around you with no memory. you dont need as much energy poured into constantly refreshing the cache of who you are supposed to pretend is having a psychotic break.

the authoritarian strat loses out in the long term against anarchist cooperation between agents that have learned enough to be able to consistently exploit their knowledge of Dread Horrors of the Abyss. who no longer need to dodge bullets.