Clever sillies and ideological overhead

What is a Compliance Cost

Compliance cost refers to all the expenses that a firm incurs in order to adhere to industry regulations. Compliance costs include salaries of people working in compliance, time and money spent on reporting, new systems required to meet retention and so on. These costs typically increase as the regulation around an industry increases. Compliance costs can be incurred as a result of local, national and international regulations, and they generally increase as a company operates in more jurisdictions. Global companies that have operations in jurisdictions all over the world with varying regulatory regimes naturally face much higher compliance costs than a company operating solely in one location.

Compliance costs are sometimes referred to as compliance overhead.

I’ve always heard this called “regulatory overhead”.

Ideological overhead shall be defined analogously as the cognitive load imposed by the social desirability of professing beliefs which often produce cognitive dissonance. I had this idea at around 17:15 of this video, which discusses Bruce Charlton’s “clever sillies”:

In short, it has often been observed that high IQ types are lacking in ‘common sense’ – and especially when it comes to dealing with other human beings. General intelligence is not just a cognitive ability; it is also a cognitive disposition. So, the greater cognitive abilities of higher IQ tend also to be accompanied by a distinctive high IQ personality type including the trait of ‘Openness to experience’, ‘enlightened’ or progressive left-wing political values, and atheism. Drawing on the ideas of Kanazawa, my suggested explanation for this association between intelligence and personality is that an increasing relative level of IQ brings with it a tendency differentially to over-use general intelligence in problem-solving, and to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour which could be termed common sense. Preferential use of abstract analysis is often useful when dealing with the many evolutionary novelties to be found in modernizing societies; but is not usually useful for dealing with social and psychological problems for which humans have evolved ‘domain-specific’ adaptive behaviours. And since evolved common sense usually produces the right answers in the social domain; this implies that, when it comes to solving social problems, the most intelligent people are more likely than those of average intelligence to have novel but silly ideas, and therefore to believe and behave maladaptively.

-Bruce G. Charlton
Clever sillies: Why high IQ people tend to be deficient in common sense

I’d conjecture that clever silliness became a costly signal of high IQ which, in the absence of purifying selection, became a Schelling point for status competition to the point of diminishing returns (e.g. “chic nihilism”, or the rise of nerd fashion from approximately 2005 to 2015). High-ability people with fast life history reproductive strategies (e.g. J.P. Rushton, Hunter S. Thompson, John McAfee) would then have been politically motivated to institute such costly signals as filters for social mobility, because hypocrisy is more costly to their competition: people who are low-ability, group-selected, and slow life history strategists.

tl;dr- When shitlibs living in gated, lilly-white communities profess the virtues of diversity and open borders, it’s a form of evolutionary competition against people who can’t afford the mental energy to navigate conflicting narratives with plausible deniability. In the same way that established corporations and cartels will prefer a byzantine regulatory environment that crushes potential competitors, smart R-selected people will tend to produce a chaotic and high-cost religious or ideological climate in which only people with dark triad traits and big brains can thrive.

About Aeoli Pera

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

3 Responses to Clever sillies and ideological overhead

  1. Schrödinger's Psych Evaluation says:

    If you’re smart enough, you can explain away just about anything. Some of those Rube-Goldberg models are kind of impressive in an initially annoying sort of way. (See, people who aren’t clever sillies will repeat them in an attempt to obtain status. This reduces the quality of the signals, but it also increases my opportunities for amusement. So, it kinda works out.)

    How much of the intelligent hypocrisy is conscious and deliberate, though? Do such shitlibs actually know what they’re doing, or are they acting upon an unconscious social instinct?

  2. Heaviside says:

    >tl;dr- When shitlibs living in gated, lilly-white communities profess the virtues of diversity and open borders, it’s a form of evolutionary competition against people who can’t afford the mental energy to navigate conflicting narratives with plausible deniability.

    You don’t know how many disagreements I’ve had with my dad about this specific issue.

    Accept the mystery!

  3. Schrödinger's Psych Evaluation says:

    >Accept the mystery!

    After Andrew Yang takes over and bribes us all into giving the government a passing grade, I plan to accept the shit out of that mystery. No need to defame the droids who operate Jay Powell’s virtual printing press of eternal prosperity*. And it just so happens that a thousand bucks a month is exactly what it will cost to bribe Robin Hoodie’s heterosexual troupe of merry fedposters into not having a society-wide, Molotov-fuelled, Anglo-restorationist spergout. Coincidence? Probably.

    * “Eternal inflation” also works, but the physicists already called dibs on that one.

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 )

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