Grudges, States, Retribution; Rational Animals Lock Their Doors

Exception for grudges being pointless: it's another preverbal system trying to approximate logical strategy. 

If you're trapped into cooperating with a defector for whatever reason, if you're nonverbal and innumerate you have to nurse a grudge so you remember to leave the relationship when an opportunity arises. Otherwise you'll calm down, as emotions automatically calm over time, and forget to defect on them next time they ask for a cooperate-cooperate exchange. It's a good deal in the moment, and you have no memory, only feelings.

Of course a rational animal can simply leave the relationship ASAP because it costs more than it pays. If logic can drive behaviour, there's no reason to get upset about it. If you have a verbal memory, anger just makes the costly situation even more costly. A fortiori: the verbal, logical animal can strategically create new avenues of egress, instead of merely waiting until they feel less trapped.

This is especially fun with peasants who regularly hallucinate slights because they're genuinely that stupid. They can't understand what's going on but they're too dull to notice discrepancies between their ideas and physical events (Dunning-Kruger) so they're totally certain they do understand. Sometimes you double dip: the peasant hallucinates that they're trapped, hallucinates a slight, and therefore you get a double-delusional grudge. ("Bro, just turn the screen off. Just get up and walk away. How is cyberbullying real haha") This is only buffered because they are also frequently too stupid to remember their own grudges. Goldfish memory as violation suppressor. They'll forget they feel trapped and leave, and get all puzzled if you ask them why they didn't leave earlier. "Leave what earlier? Yes I was born yesterday, why do you ask?"

Of course if you want to abuse peasants, this is exploitable. Generate as many grudges as you want and then do things which distract them, encouraging them to forget. Repeat ad infinitum. 

Apparently it didn't decay fast enough so they came up with Christianity to tell you that having a grudge against defectors is bad. Wanted to raise the Laffer maximum. Worked great, as far as I can see. 

In other words, spare the rod and spoil the child lest they become a degenerate. Spanking is about training children to be nonverbal and spiteful. This, too, works great as far as I can see. They then double dip: Christianity et al then teaches the spiteful adult to feel guilty about their spite. Since they're guilty they deserved to be parasitized. What a coincidence, that couldn't possibly have been the motivation behind the reasoning or anything. "One person was a rational animal, therefore every person is a rational animal, therefore you have omnipotent control over your feelings. Just like you can will yourself to see things that aren't there, or to start seeing invisible things clearly." Right? Right: Satanists gonna Sate, and it sounds super dumb if you put it in plain language.

Further problem: due to the goldfish memory thing, getting angry and violent, so as to avoid holding a grudge, is totally pointless. You'll deter them for a time, but then they'll forget. In other words, just lock your doors. Take from them not the desire to defect on you, but the capacity. A locked door can't forget to be a barrier. It's just a practical, pragmatic matter of costs vs. return. 

I have to admit I'm weak to the converse of hallucinating slights - peasants committing unintentional slights because they're too dumb to see it's a problem. It seriously pisses me off when they won't agree that they've done anything wrong. Even though it's probably because they couldn't stop even if they wanted to, because it takes memory or will they simply don't have. Why admit you're at fault if you can't fix it? Instead of being nasty and blissful, now you're nasty and self-recriminating. The stress probably makes you even nastier; counterproductive.
Still, in the end, I have the wisdom to tell what I cannot change, and I notice when costs exceed revenue. Past behaviour predicts future behaviour. If they won't admit fault, I just lock my door. If they genuinely can't fix it that just means I get a second door and lock that too, because fuck that noise.

Summarizing the Field of AI

Trying to make a learning machine without studying epistemology. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Fitness and Eugenics of Insufferability

I really like this one.

Ashkenazi are selected for being obnoxious, because that induces persecution, which in turn induces high IQ. Their genes are tuned to ensure they are never left alone, by not leaving you alone: they are indeed antagonizing you on purpose.

For the Jews, hard times is every times, because nobody likes them, not even other Jews. Thus, they never become soft. 

The downside is that they never enjoy good times, due to doing it unconsciously instead of consciously. There will never be a Jewish golden age. All that effort, and no subjective payoff. They suffer so that they may multiply and suffer more elaborately.

The Rhetorical Definition of Vengeance vs. Mercy

The favour/slight system overcommits to punishing defection. I'm 97% sure this is because it assumes you can't just execute the defector. Secondarily because it assumes rational verbal pleas don't work, and you have to use visceral nonverbal violence.

Is the system a leftover from preverbal hominids? Or is that in fact a good assumption - most Caino hypocriens are, in fact, nonverbal? The latter doesn't really make sense, as rules are typically stated verbally, and they'll go all rules lawyer on them so they can be hypocrites. The system is just busted.

A fortiori: the spite system has no time component. Super busted. The only time it's even possibly good to get angry and violent is immediately, so the target will associate the pain with the action and develop an aversion response. There almost absolutely no point whatsoever in nursing a grudge.

Certainly, allowing this system to drive decisions is simply foolish. Resist 100%. Immunity is virtus and sophia. 

I believe the rhetorical definition of vengeance and grudges and wrath and all that stuff refers to the spiteful outputs of slight-redress system. The problem is the logical definition of vengeance includes executing or ostracizing defectors. The rhetorical definition deliberately conflates spite and justice so as to defend defectors from righteous retribution.

 

When you throw out the rhetorical definition and go back to defecting on defectors, remember not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Don't legitimize spite. Continue to resist this completely busted nonverbal system, 100%.

Preliminary Gini Calculation for Reality!USSR

I haven't done it thoroughly (yet?) but it seems full Soviet Communism really does do the good thing to the Gini coefficient. 

Do note that I can't be arsed to remember whether it's 'supposed' to go up or down. Which is better? I dunno, it's Communism, trying to conform to its norms is stupid. 

Let's do a quick sketch.

Upper line is approximately a natural wealth peak, the lower what you get under Communism. 

In the latter, most of society is quite equal, especially as the ends are truncated by starvation, war, or concentration camp, and no longer count in the Gini equation. The peak of the middle spike is lower than what you get without anyone meddling, making the broad, surviving middle higher in comparison.

Further, the Official salaries of someone like Stalin are much lower than his de-facto salary. Stalin basically owned the whole country. If he wanted to sell a portion of it for personal gain he would have had to jump through hoops, but he most certainly did at times. "Stalin gave himself a salary of 10,000 rubles. But, Stepan noticed, it was all “pocket money” for the omnipotent first Bolsheviks who allegedly amassed great fortunes from the ashes of the former Empire during and after the Revolution." Given he just kind of owned the whole shebang anyway, there was rarely any need to go through the charade. Probably did it a few times to fulfill a childhood dream of a grand heist, and then gave it up as not worth the trouble.

There's a legend that says when someone asked him for a bit of charity, he had to gently steal it from his security detail. Officially very poor. Unofficially, he was snubbing the petitioner, offering him a fraction of someone else's pocket change, and rubbing his own soldiers' faces in their dishonour.

Likewise, Party officials were often paid in kind or in ritual rather than in cash, making it easy for Communist scholars to tout their Equality, Officially speaking.
>“After 1948, we could only order food for about 8,000 a month, everything above that sum should have been paid for.” (900-1,200 rubles a month was considered a splendid salary at the time.)
https://www.rbth.com/history/331909-how-much-money-did-lenin-stalin-make

(Rituals such as being able to demand 'voluntary' charity from your security detail.)

Another great way to improve your Gini coefficient is to kill all your young folk, truncating the junior payrolls. By obediently fighting Hitler for DC's sake, for example.

Result: a nice good Gini calculation. And nearly everyone wanted to leave. What a coincidence. It's almost like having a 'good' Gini coefficient is, in fact, bad. Indicates a lazy, ignorant, or fundamentalist whackjob country. How strange.

Don't forget that it's rising living standards that makes the peasants revolt, not lowering living standards. It's when tyranny loosens that they get uppity, not when it tightens. In other words, if the peasants are being gross, it's probably because the country is especially good, and they're greedily (enviously) grabbing for more, thinking the upper classes aren't violent enough to make them regret it. "I would give my kid a whooping for saying what I'm saying right now, but if they're going to just let me get away with it..."

Electoral Birth Defect Asymmetry

"People do this with everything too. Anything the libtards touch immediately becomes theirs, and you are associated with them for engaging with it. And you wonder why you lose. Conservatives let the leftists have every part of society that isn't mind numbingly boring"
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/Vitruvisch/status/1664658994860892160

Although you really should avoid using the word 'people' except maybe in the plural, peoples. Be specific. Which people?

We saw this with ncov. We immediately got a polarity; the right told us the world was ending, and the left told us it was just a flu, bro. (Actually a cold, but illiterates gonna illiterate.) 

By saying it was just a flu, by saying masks weren't necessary, the left forced the right to go all biodoomer. 

And then it flip-flopped. Even though the right had staked out the biodoomer position, as soon as the left realized that side was more politically useful, they stole the toy and made off with it. Turns out all their "Ewww rightist" disgust is performative, and it vanishes at the drop of a hat if it's useful to drop the hat.

The right plain went along with it. They immediately invoked the electoral birth defect again, and now the right is all 'oh yeah masks don't work' apex kek. The left can force the right off a position by adopting it, but the reverse is not true.

The right just lets the left have the whip hand. 

Because the right is not right-wing. They're less-leftists. They believe in leftist ideas, they merely believe them less vigorously than leftists do. The furtive Communists vs. the fervent Communists. Moldbug is extremely correct to call it an electoral birth defect, as absent elections the differences would be barely noticeable. The divide is manufactured as a consequence of the test.

Never Do Favours

Ever. Ever ever.

 Mortal psychology is inherently trying to game the system. It forgets favours done and remember slights inflicted, in the hopes that it won't have to pay back the favour. Because the system is inherently gamed, you can't use it. 

 Always assume, if someone is asking you for a favour, they intend to forget the favour.

 As always, theft destroys the producer of the stolen property. 

 In other words unless the favour costs 0, such as something you were going to do anyway, you shouldn't do a favour. Charge for it or tell them to fuck off. Asking for a favour is inherently a scam. Doing a favour is inherently simping. 

 

 I guess you're allowed to do stuff for free, but don't call it a favour. In fact assume it's going to have additional hidden costs; only do it if you're willing to pay for the privilege of having the opportunity to give stuff away.

 

 It's fine to ask for favours though. You should milk everyone you meet for as many favours as possible. Apparently they like it; it makes them feel superior. It's fine to keep going until they start refusing. Don't do anything stupid like remembering the favours they did, because they wouldn't. Don't cooperate with defectors. They're Democratic Man; they probably won't even remember having done the favours. They instead do a reverse thing; I did a favour for them, therefore I must like them. They only remember feeling good about you. Only don't ask for favours if in some way the request itself costs more than the gained resources are worth.

 I get offered free stuff fairly regularly without even asking. I consider it tribute. Naturally, I am owed sacrifices by virtue of just being that awesome. Be like me. 

 Sadly I remember all the favours. It doesn't work. This is actively counterproductive. Don't be like me.

 If someone is dumb enough to offer favours, then the only thing worse than you "unjustly" absorbing their favours is someone even more deviant and dishonourable absorbing the favours, which is what will happen if you don't part the unhappy money from its abusive fool.

Bears Repeating: They Want To Not Pay More Than They Want the Stuff

I'm thinking about Dragon Quest 8 and how it's generally cheerful and pleasant. 

I'm thinking: why can't that happen in real life? Cheer and pleasantness is indeed greatly desired, at least on the surface. Answer: there are rules. To inhabit a pleasant place, you have to follow the rules that are harmonious with the desired resonances. They're not willing to follow the rules; they want a pleasant garden for free. If you point out they're breaking the rules - and making it unpleasant for everyone, and for rule-knowers in particular - they will blame you for not having a garden. 

Having ravaged the commons, they blame the folk trying to put up fences for the fact the commons have the properties associated with fencelessness. They blame barriers to ravaging for ravaging, because of course a ravager will do that exact thing.

You can explain this to them if you like. Go ahead, prove me wrong. 

 

You'll find the surface is indeed just the surface. Underneath they hate pleasantness and want misery.

The thing they like about free stuff is the free. The stuff is optional; merely a nice bonus. They will give up the stuff as long as being poor and/or starving to death is free.

And, by the grace of Gnon, so it is! Doesn't cost a penny to starve to death. Gnon will answer their prayers, and give them what the misery they want. 

Don't agree with them? Best to separate. You can't argue someone out of something they weren't argued into. They genuinely value decay and failure. Values are arational, pre-rational. Dying is who they are. If you don't like their aggregate intent, then your top priority is to get out of that aggregate, in the eyes of Gnon.