Nathan T_ Freeman

Yes, but that isn't what you said.. You specificaly said, "but I know at least what I would like to do now, and that is to segregate the races and have them live in homogenous states/communities, to preserve themselves, and protect themselves." If this is happening naturally, why suggest a need to segregate? So I ask again, how do you plan for this to happen voluntarily? By 2040, if demographic trends continue, America's white population will be the minority. We need immigration control. And... there it is. I think we all understand just exactly what the story is now. Please don't feed the troll.

I think he has too much invested in the "nurture is what we can control" message to concede anything. Well I'd rather let him state his viewpoint than keep guessing at it. In Video 3 of his The Fascists that Surround You series, he says "I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment." But I'd still like more detail about this. I thought we were on the verge of getting that earlier in the thread, but now it just keeps growing beyond where TronCat and I were zeroing in on the issue. "I remain mildly agnostic tending toward environment" Now what I want to know is if he means he's a social/environmental determinist (genes don't have any effect), or if hs admits genes have a role, but that envrionment has a larger role. You have to work very very hard to come up with the interpretation that Stef argues that "genes don't have any effect." You have to ignore every dream interpretation that he's ever done, since he frequently refers to the power of the subconscious as an expression of shared biology. You have to ignore his theory on the origins of the belief in God. You have to ignore everything he's ever said about epigenetics. And you have to ignore his argument that freewill is an emergent property of enormously complex biological processes that are clearly based on genetics. If you pretend he never said any of that for the last 7 years; if you completely drop the context of the history of FDR; then you can barely squeak by with the hint of a whisper that Stef might have suggested that its possible "genes don't have any effect." But, let's pretend for a moment that he did say that. And let's hypothetically accept that he is wrong. Let's further accept he's not just a little off-the-mark, but he is in fact totally backwards. Let's hypothesize that all human aggression is an effect entirely controlled by fundamental genetic makeup. Let's imagine a world in which not only is violence an effect purely of biological determinism, no different than the color of a person's eyes or the shape of his nose, but we also have perfect knowledge of how to identify these biological patterns in any human, from fetus to deathbed. What do you intend to do with that? Obviously violence in society is still a problem, right? So now that you have a perfect and absolute measurement to determine that someone IS GOING TO BE violent, what do you do with that? Do you intend to start breeding programs to weed out the genetic precursors to violence? How would you implement that? Or maybe you could create a program of mandatory abortions for pregnancies where the fetus is identified as a future killer? Or you could create a societal mashup of Gattaca and Minority Report, where the Pre-Psycho division of the police force constantly monitors everyone's genetic material and rounds up and imprisons violent people? Unless you plan on implementing something like this, then it really makes no difference whether the origins of violence are only 1% environmental or 99% environmental -- because the environment is the only part that humans can control. You can't alter the genetic material in your 3 year old's body, but you can stop hitting, yelling at, and lying to your 3 year old. By focusing the question on biology, you focus on the thing you can't change. And so what good is having that answer? Do you simply want to prove that violence is an inevitable and unavoidable aspect of society? If that's your belief, then do you hold true to your values in action? Do you use violence in your normal interactions with people? Do you walk into a store and simply take whatever you want and if you're confronted by someone, beat them until they get out of your way? If so, how's that working out for you? If not, why not? Why don't you live in accordance with your beliefs? Do you fear arrest and imprisonment? Surely you could simply explain to the police that your genetic makeup compelled you to beat the store clerk to a pulp. It's not your fault; it's your selfish genes that beat him, not your free will. How about I propose an alternate theory for why you want to focus on the genetic basis for violence? You see, if violence were caused purely by genetics, then it wouldn't be *anyone's* fault. It wouldn't be a matter of morality any more than skin color or the thickness of someone's hair. And if that were the case, then all the violence in the world; all the pain and cruelty we witness; all the abuse heaped upon you; all the abuse you've inflicted on others; all the misery that will ever be caused by one person aggressing against another -- ALL of it would be forgiven. All the moral questions around violence would simply vanish. Nobody would be evil any more. They would simply be. Nothing would have to change. In fact, the problem of violence in society wouldn't even be a problem any more. We don't have a "problem of gravity in society," do we? It would simply be as inevitable as the tides. And no one would ever have to lift a finger to stop abuse and protect a victim. What an enormous relief that would be! So how can you get that relief? Well, one way might be to find someone who passionately and vigorously argues for volitional consciousness, non-aggression as a universal ethic, and the importance of peaceful relationships between all humans -- particularly between parents and children. Then you could prove him wrong. Sure you might have to completely mischaracterize his position in order to do that; perhaps by labeling him a "determinist" when he's published an ocean of material in support of free will; but so what? The important point is that if you can pin him against the wall and get him to confess that genes control behaviorial outcomes, ah then all weight can be lifted from your shoulders and all responsibility for the actions of people in society is whisked away in the cool breeze of genetic determinism. Nobody ever has to fear making moral choices again! What blessed, blessed relief! I can see why you'd work so very very hard for it.

The Fallacy of Sunken Costs. This is another great example of counter-intuitive-but-true economic logic. Honestly, I'd be amazed if this exact topic weren't already the subject of a long thread on this forum.

One could switch, but there would be no empirical reason to do so. Why switch at all if there is no evidence tipping the odds of 50:50? Hi, If you read the previous posts, you'll see your logic is incorrect. You have twice as high a chance of winning if you switch. Empyrically speaking I suppose if the initial question were worded differently I would be incorrect, but I still don't see it. For instance, if I make a second guess, the odds of being correct will be better than the odds of being correct with the first guess. If however we look at whether I "should" make a second guess because it increases my odds... I don't see it. Since this is a philosophy board, the meaning of "should you" is certainly open for debate. But the basic assumption of the Monty Hall Problem is that you want to win a good prize. If you can accept that premise, then it follows that you should take whatever actions maximize your chance of winning. It has been demonstrated quite clearly in this thread that switching doors increases your chance of winning from 1 in 3 to 2 in 3. If you're struggling to accept that (and you'd hardly be the first person to argue against this counter-intuitive-but-true argument) then read over all the replies. The explanation has been presented in full. The MHP and people's reactions to it are an excellent measure of cognitive bias. A less mathematically intense but similarly challenging concept is the economic Law of Comparative Advantage. A similarly interesting measure can be extrapolated from how people deal with the answers to the question that are correct, but backed by imprecise math. So when someone asks "should you switch?" and another person says "yes because your odds of winning improve by X%" and the reply is "no, they improve by Y%" and then a debate ignites about who admits when they're wrong and how they do it. To me, that is a far more interesting signal about the participants in a conversation. Of course, the internet is pretty much the perfect feeding ground for the pedantic...

If you took this one video as the entirety of the argument, then that would be true. However, since Stef has about 2000 hours of additional videos and podcasts, many of which describe how the State always achieves the exact opposite of what it claims, I think he's made the casual connection pretty well elsewhere.