3 ms·
> If you get deeper into his stuff you'll see that he's not at all, in fact quite the opposite. Meaning, he has no plan for simplification, and maybe even not
by mistermann 6y ago
> If you get deeper into his stuff you'll see that he's not at all, in fact quite the opposite.
Meaning, he has no plan for simplification, and maybe even not only that, but he doesn't believe the common man can understand these ideas? (If so, I'm curious how he plans to launch his new world order scheme.)
I was watching this Michael Malice fellow on Lex Fridman the other day - very intelligent guy, knows his stuff (that which is in his bubble) very well, and he is very strongly of the opinion that not only can the common man not think currently, but that they are incapable of it at all.
Now, it is possible that this is the case of course, but forming strong conclusions about something for which there is literally no data (teaching thinking has not been attempted in any serious way) demonstrates a significant gap in one's intelligence. Although, about 90%+ of the population suffers from this (take the HN hivemind on political topics for example), so I guess one shouldn't be too hard on him.
- googthrowaway42 6y agoI actually watched that Michael Malice interview the other day too. I disagree with him on that particular idea that people are divided so permanently into these classes of people. I definitely used to be a normie liberal/progressive with many of those associated pathologies but I've always been very independent minded. This is a very common idea though, closely associated with the idea of the importance of heredity. It's such a common idea (think of the emphasis on genealogies in the Bible) that I can't fully discount it.