It's been more than a year! This is <theDerpiest> I won't pretend I know who you are or where you're at. But, I know what potential I saw years ago. And, I've tried to treat you as an equal wherever possible. Now, for the second time, your father has asked me to reach out to you. This time, I consider it an honor.
I am heavily into Artificial Intelligence, big data, applied to socioeconomic movements. I quit my job to do this work for our movement. <my wife> & I are more comfortable than most, some privilege. But, we've made large sacrifices that definitely "hurt". Now, I have a few teams making a real difference and also feel like a family.
As I've studied social movements I've recognized a pattern in the "successful" ones. All these groups are decentralized, small, nowhere near the 10-20 million the soft science says our nation needs to "succeed" in making a real change. Then, all of a sudden, for seemingly "no reason at all" (at the time), people flood in, the movement "coalesces", and they "succeed".
In all the "expert" readings I've done, they explain with, "the situation is bad enough," and some perspective of propaganda. But, I believe they're all lying by omission. There is something more.
A society, any society, can never sustain even a majority of epistemic virtue to properly represent their own best interests. I believe Bernays: the sheep, or "lumpen", are as eternal as the need for propaganda to lead them.
The critical factors, the most indicative variables, my intuition and independently backed by the AI, is not only the "badness" of the situation, but also the development of future leadership. The AI, when determining magnitude of "success", values leadership slightly more than the "badness". It values propaganda at roughly half of either of the above. In nonviolent success, leadership roughly 1.5x the "badness".
If we achieve threshold numbers of leaders with threshold epistemic virtue, the sheep will suddenly follow, we will succeed, and, we will not see it coming. Only in hindsight will we be able to analyze what the thresholds were.
I see "stinking thinking" all the time, a lack of epistemic virtue. Day before yesterday, a white woman held the door open for me. As I approached she says, "I always hold the door open for POC."
Well, so do I. I consciously treat the poor and POC with as much respect and love as I can muster. I do it because their lives are likely devoid of such. And, I want them to know someone understands their value.
But, if someone is proclaiming their intent, their motivation is to make themselves feel good, a substitute for sacrifice for solutions. They've harmed the other, for their gain, effecting nothing positive.
I hit her with, "How does that do anything but preserve your fragile feelings, Karen?" The response was a body language, "Well I never!"
I definitely could have handled that better. I wasted an opportunity to try to make a loving impact. I just hope she can take the bad and leverage it to good. I guess that's up to her.
I'm frustrated as all hell with this cognitive dissonance. Defeating it is quite literally my life purpose. But, we will have no idea how much is enough until after we hit thresholds. We've no choice but to keep on keepin' on, in faith.
You're not an economic slave, a sheep that believes what they're instructed to believe, one to be caught in the trap of identity politics.
We need you, <young man> . You must be more.
Ask me good questions and I will give you honest, high quality answers.
I'm still learning how the site works. I can't figure out how to get to your response in context from the inbox.
I'm assuming you're responding to "loving humanity". It's from The Brothers Karamazov, by Dostoevsky. IMO, it's his best work. But, others might say it's Notes From Underground.
My friend asked me to write his son.
Hello <young man>,
It's been more than a year! This is <theDerpiest> I won't pretend I know who you are or where you're at. But, I know what potential I saw years ago. And, I've tried to treat you as an equal wherever possible. Now, for the second time, your father has asked me to reach out to you. This time, I consider it an honor.
I am heavily into Artificial Intelligence, big data, applied to socioeconomic movements. I quit my job to do this work for our movement. <my wife> & I are more comfortable than most, some privilege. But, we've made large sacrifices that definitely "hurt". Now, I have a few teams making a real difference and also feel like a family.
As I've studied social movements I've recognized a pattern in the "successful" ones. All these groups are decentralized, small, nowhere near the 10-20 million the soft science says our nation needs to "succeed" in making a real change. Then, all of a sudden, for seemingly "no reason at all" (at the time), people flood in, the movement "coalesces", and they "succeed".
In all the "expert" readings I've done, they explain with, "the situation is bad enough," and some perspective of propaganda. But, I believe they're all lying by omission. There is something more.
A society, any society, can never sustain even a majority of epistemic virtue to properly represent their own best interests. I believe Bernays: the sheep, or "lumpen", are as eternal as the need for propaganda to lead them.
The critical factors, the most indicative variables, my intuition and independently backed by the AI, is not only the "badness" of the situation, but also the development of future leadership. The AI, when determining magnitude of "success", values leadership slightly more than the "badness". It values propaganda at roughly half of either of the above. In nonviolent success, leadership roughly 1.5x the "badness".
If we achieve threshold numbers of leaders with threshold epistemic virtue, the sheep will suddenly follow, we will succeed, and, we will not see it coming. Only in hindsight will we be able to analyze what the thresholds were.
I see "stinking thinking" all the time, a lack of epistemic virtue. Day before yesterday, a white woman held the door open for me. As I approached she says, "I always hold the door open for POC."
Well, so do I. I consciously treat the poor and POC with as much respect and love as I can muster. I do it because their lives are likely devoid of such. And, I want them to know someone understands their value.
But, if someone is proclaiming their intent, their motivation is to make themselves feel good, a substitute for sacrifice for solutions. They've harmed the other, for their gain, effecting nothing positive.
I hit her with, "How does that do anything but preserve your fragile feelings, Karen?" The response was a body language, "Well I never!"
I definitely could have handled that better. I wasted an opportunity to try to make a loving impact. I just hope she can take the bad and leverage it to good. I guess that's up to her.
I'm frustrated as all hell with this cognitive dissonance. Defeating it is quite literally my life purpose. But, we will have no idea how much is enough until after we hit thresholds. We've no choice but to keep on keepin' on, in faith.
You're not an economic slave, a sheep that believes what they're instructed to believe, one to be caught in the trap of identity politics.
We need you, <young man> . You must be more.
Ask me good questions and I will give you honest, high quality answers.
Very intriguing stuff here. Where can I read more?
I'm still learning how the site works. I can't figure out how to get to your response in context from the inbox.
I'm assuming you're responding to "loving humanity". It's from The Brothers Karamazov, by Dostoevsky. IMO, it's his best work. But, others might say it's Notes From Underground.