This is a pretty obvious idea in retrospect, but I didn’t articulate it until I read this.
An astute comment from Wrecked ‘Em about how Twatter can maintain plausible deniability while aggressively silencing right-wing dissident voices on its monopolistic platform:
I would bet both of my gloriously large balls that Twitter is leveraging a basic psychometric difference between liberals and conservatives to achieve widespread shadowbanning of conservatives while maintaining plausible deniability. Brilliant, yet pure evil. Here’s how it works: It’s long been known that liberals are far, far more likely to block and unfriend people (even close family) over politics than are conservatives. What does Twitter do? Writes an algorithm that squelches people who are blocked by lots of other people. Twitter: “It’s not us, it’s the al-go-rithm.” Also Twitter: “Shitlibs, do yo thing!”
Twatter is Leveraging Liberal Fragility
I can verify this effect from personal experience. When he’s not around, my other siblings are very talkative about blocking my one brother who lifts and has not gone 100% poz.
This will be a relatively high-falutin’ way of describing a simple thing, so please bear with me: If we conceive of each person’s economic value as partially dependent on the Metcalfe valuation of their personal and professional networks, and if we expect this to become a stronger factor as specialization and population size increase, then social competitors will also be more and more inclined to pursue their political ends by destroying the networks of their targets. A modern person who is 100% cut off from economic activity is poorer than a caveman because a caveman can at least build a shelter without having it torn down by cops- his economic value is therefore effectively zero or negative.
Based on this, I’d propose a simple multiplicative model of individual economic value, where IEV = “value of what you can do” * “value of what your network will do for you” = “ability to use tools” * “ability to arbitrage social networks”. I’d estimate the former by putting 100 people in the woods and then ranking their quality of life after 10 years along a Pareto distribution, and I’d estimate the latter by how much ransom money each person can gin up to save them from kidnappers. As you know, liberals tilt verbal (deriving their IEV network effects) and conservatives tilt nonverbal (deriving their IEV from tool use), and this is probably why CEOs and the very wealthy tend to be strongly liberal.
We’d expect stress tolerators to emphasize tool use (k-selection, high individual quality), ruderals to emphasize networking (r-selection, high quantity), social competitors to have a balanced profile with the highest overall IEV (both r and k-selection), and dysgenic people to be low in both qualities (neither r nor k-selection).