Liberal fragility as evopsych strategy for social network hacking

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!”

Chateau Heartiste
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).

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Liberal fragility as evopsych strategy for social network hacking

  1. Ø says:

    >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)

    I’m not sure you’re using the terms “k and r” correctly here; I’m definitely the competitor phenotype, but every single thing about my genetic profile is almost excruciatingly geared toward maximizing quality over quantity, delayed maturation, in-group loyalty, high intelligence; etc. but with me you can tell that the K-strategy of quality-over-quantity has been executed in an environment with a higher carrying capacity due to strong interpersonal facility, fluency, empathy; etc. So I think you’re confusing reproductive strategy with environmental carrying capacity.

    I’ve seen you use the term “r-selected breeding environment” on the blog before, but what happens when an r-selected breeding environment mates and produces offspring with a k-selected breeding environment? Nothing, because there’s no such thing as an “r-selected breeding environment”. Rather, there are breeding environments of various levels of size and stability, and various evolutionary strategies that can take place in these environs. An organism can be k or r-selected, not an environment. K-selected species such as lions, tigers, and elephants share the same habitat as various little ruderal critters and whatnot.

  2. Ø says:

    This is not to say that positive eugenics are the way forward, because I actually more or less agree with your thoughts on that subject (despite likely being the product of at least one such eugenic program. I haven’t done any sort of genetic testing on myself as of yet, but I look exactly like the surviving statues of Joseph/Imhotep while my dad looks much more stereotypically “Jewy”, so it wouldn’t surprise me if I were part Jewish a la Koanic. In fact, it would actually surprise me if I were not at least partially genetically Jewish).

    I think positive eugenics tends to create these very *potent* people, but when these people fail to choose good over evil (as humans are so wont to do), you get the George Soroses/Sephiroths/Saurons of the world and then a bunch of problems happen. To bring this back around, I think Sephiroth, Zack and Aerith are all very K-selected, but the quality-over-quantity strategy has taken place in different contexts and thus produced different genetic results, the common thread being unmistakable genetic superiority to the average human.

    Tl;dr imo r/K theory is a scientific and not a moral concept.

  3. Ø says:

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to pay child support for my 14 out-of-wedlock chilluns

  4. Ø says:

    “Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the purely æsthetic into the moral sphere. A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its æsthetic form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive. The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its æsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world? The pure intuitive who represses judgment or possesses it only under the spell of perception never meets this question fundamentally, since his only problem is the How of perception. He, therefore, finds the moral problem unintelligible, even absurd, and as far as possible forbids his thoughts to dwell upon the disconcerting vision. It is different with the morally orientated intuitive. He concerns himself with the meaning of his vision; he troubles less about its further æsthetic possibilities than about the possible moral effects which emerge from its intrinsic significance. His judgment allows him to discern, though often only darkly, that he, as a man and as a totality, is in some way inter-related with his vision, that [p. 510] it is something which cannot just be perceived but which also would fain become the life of the subject. Through this realization he feels bound to transform his vision into his own life. But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken — it becomes too subjective. His argument lacks convincing reason. He can only confess or pronounce. His is the ‘voice of one crying in the wilderness’.”

  5. Ø says:

    This is not to say that I disagree with the overall, underlying gist of your vision, because if I didn’t I wouldn’t be here, I just have issues with some of the particulars and so will other humane/altruistic extroverted people as you try to reach them

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      I know, remember I got dat Irish chin. Make corrections as necessary. The extroversion links in the prerequisites are weaker than the others, hence the need for (among other corrections) a Conscientiousness > Openness > Agreeableness > Neuroticism cycle.

  6. Aeoli Pera says:

    All in all, the eugenics question only matters “because we live here”. It’s not a moral issue per se, but we understand our decisions and actions have consequences for other people.

  7. Ø says:

    >All in all, the eugenics question only matters “because we live here”.

    I agree. When thinking about eugenics, you ultimately have to answer the question, “Who would you rather live next to?”

  8. Ø says:

    ^This entire passage, btw, is an electrifying, action-packed thrill-ride, in theaters this summer, rated r (or is it K?). Read over the introverted thinking type then compare and review Heaviside’s poasting career or do the same for PLEASUREMAN and the extraverted thinking type (or, for that matter, myself and the extraverted intuitive type).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s