I've found the Less Wrong description to be profoundly disappointing, so let's do better.
When you talk about a group for a purpose, the label used for that group should be causally relevant to the purpose.
I am hungry. I have a stick, a carrot, a steak, and a mug. I can carve up this group in various ways.
"Let's eat something natural."
"Let's eat something fleshy."
"Let's eat something long and thin."
Technically, if I have the correct background knowledge, any of those would work. In this example, were I sharing my dinner with you, any of those, while a bit stilted, are perfectly understandable and we could continue a discussion and ultimately sit down and dine.
However, when doing something difficult, we need every advantage we can get. Apparent understandability is not good enough. If I want to eat something, I should start by considering an edible property. We can say, "Whites are outbred," but 'white' is not a relevant property, and leads to interminable arguments about whether slavs or jews are 'white.'
When investigating, it's entirely possible that nobody knows the relevant background information. If I say, "Long thin things are edible," even formally restricting it to a simple set like above, we may end up trying to eat a stick.
Hajnal Europeans are the set living behind the Hajnal line, and thus have a history of manorialism and Catholic social engineering against the clan and in favour of itself. These things have a causal relationship with outbred nuclear families, which has a causal relationship to democracy resistance and lack of corruption and so on. Their colour, like the shape of the fleshy thing above, is coincidental.
Politicians/sophists love doing this wrong, precisely because it leads to confusions which they can exploit to get you to serve their interests instead of your own.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment