All of CaveJohnson's Comments + Replies

Your link seems like a bad idea considering I'm seeing people throwing tantrums and mass down voting certain users. Considering your nick I'm a bit suspicious that you are a troll.

Edit: I should clarify, I don't find anything wrong with the content written by Lynn, just that some people go instantly into political mode if they see links to a political site, even when the article is by an expert in his field.

Linking some other relevant writing by Lynn would have been preferable.

2nd Edit: Reading the whole article I find nothing wrong with it, the besides politically motivated whining about the site hosting the article I see no good reason to down vote this link. Retracted.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

A interesting NYT article I saw linked to in your inside higher ed link.

Social Scientist Sees Bias Within

SAN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30,

... (read more)
In fairness, most forms of discrimination involve choosing among bodies while ignoring the minds. It's much easier to end up with unbalanced numbers of, say, liberals or atheists or whatever if you select based on intelligence, qualification etc.
Obviously since non-liberal post-graduate students of social psychology cause all sorts of nasty stuff by their presence. For example the achievement gap between black and non-black students is probably entirely due to their evil racism. Their presence is probably also sometimes detected by sensitive female students who detect patriarchal bias from them and thus avoid social science, it might even serve as a trauma trigger for them. Don't forget hail! Even a simple look in a certain contexts [] probably suffices for that so we can't really trust official investigation to keep us safe from this insidious hidden menace. What if some of them start a right wing students club with regular meetings [] on campus! All these problems brought by non-liberal students also need to be put into context when it comes to the health costs to other students we would incur by making them feel non-excluded. It might for example induce infertility or impotence. Also what if they don white robes and start ridding by night and carrying out meetings?? Pacts with shadowy right wing organizations and them privately repudiating social justice, freedom or equality are also horrible possibilities. They might even speak ill of MLK or FDR, engage in meet ups in order to marry off their female members so they can experience missionary position procreative sex! [] They also probably use non-fair trade chocolate in their baking recepies! Really? Why don't you just use human blood! Also we already know reality has a liberal bias, so us being biased that way is no biggie makes us more accurate really.

You seem to have quite good research skills, do you have any advice for someone trying to find out if academia has considered something already? Especially if that someone doesn't know that much about the field in question.

Try a bunch of queries; read good-looking papers, not for their results, but their discussion of background information. There's no real good solution to the problem of known unknowns: "I'm sure this has been researched, but what's the exact phrase or name it's been given in academia?" I suspect this is one of the benefits of being in the community - when you discuss something or mention an idea, they can say 'ah yes, X' and now you have not the problem of an unknown known but the much much easier problem of a known unknown which you can just punch into Google Scholar and get to work.

Ah I fear I misunderstood you and took "produces" rather too literally. Don't forget that STEM fields are attractive to those who want to climb socially but lack the graces because of their upbringing.

Obviously they retain few of those who go to become mathematicians.

In general, nothing is more difficult than not pretending to understand.

--Nicolás Gómez Dávila, source

I liked the quote, once I figured out how all the negatives interacted with each other.
Too true.

We just care a lot more about the the views of the Brahmin than your second class of people.

Than you for catching the typo. Also I find it refreshingly honest that you acknowledge reality of this.

Which class of people has the larger microphone? Which class has the money?

Yes they by definition don't control the media or academia, their material resources aren't trivial but it is impossible for them to coordinate, since any organization they create to defend their interests will be subverted or marginalized.

Which class produces mathematicians?

Th... (read more)

I'm not sure the Moldbuggian taxonomy carves reality at the joints but I have no problem employing it as needed. I doubt it (IQ, heredity), unless you're including Asian immigrant populations. But in any case mathematicians usually spend a good amount of time in university which means, wherever they grew up, by the time they're looking for jobs they're usually firmly entrenched in a brahmin social circle.

People talking about how low status Glenn Beck is need to realize that numerically far more people take Glenn Beck seriously than Kurzweil. Just because the Brahmin (Moldbug's terminology) hate him, dosen't mean he isn't influential and popular in among the class of people who find themselves vulnerable to be mislead to react badly to the Singularity.

Being influential is not necessarily a good thing. Especially when Glenn Beck's influence is in delusional conspiracy theories, and evangelical christianity, and Young Earth Creationism.

We realize that. We just care a lot more about the the views of the Brahmin than your second class of people. Which class of people has the larger microphone? Which class has the money? Which class produces mathematicians? Etc.

You do realize he is speaking in favour of the singularity and SIAI? Also if you haven't noticed there are plenty of right wing people on LW.

I've heard a top poster here mention that 1950s America was Communist. :)

Quote from a major LWer at minicamp:
Regardless of the composition of LW posters, this is not a probable hypothesis: A big, scary "they" is, in general, a silly concept. A big, scary 'they" focused on impeding technological progress is silly on enough fronts that it bears expressly pointing out the silliness, lest it quietly adjust one's priors without one noticing. Edit: An explanation of downvotes would me understand where I went wrong.

The question now becomes what is Glenn Beck's username on LessWrong?

Every Right Wing Neo Reactionary Lesswrongian is now under suspicion.

I bet US$1000 [] that Glenn Beck is one of User:Will_Newsome's sock-puppets.

Not if he wants it done. Ask if he has any objection to you writing something like this for LW.

Eh, it's his blog so I'd feel better making it for his site and just linking his index in the sequences.

What do you think in the context of the link I called "Relevant"?

The fact is that political stupidity is a special kind of stupidity, not well correlated with intelligence, or with other varieties of stupidity.

--John Derbyshire, source


What is the intended extension of "political stupidity" in this quote? (Intended by you in quoting it; I can hardly demand that you engage in telepathy.)

This is a most excellent point, that I need to consider more. Honestly I have no desire to force people to "Truth", but I do want the liberty to seek it and act on it. If this means my segregation or secession from the vast majority of humanity and posthumanity, since they can't be protected in any other way, so be it.

It just occurred to me that this is basically the state of humanity in Brave New World.

Thank you! Fixed the link to match yours.

Why make up a new word? Paleoconservatives and smarter white nationalists (think Jared Taylor ) seem to often fit the bill.

Depends if the differences in assigned moral values are large enough they can easily approach Nazi pretty quickly. As a thought experiment consider how many dolphins would you kill to save a single person?

Not really it is perfectly possible to be explicitly aware of one's racial preferences and not really be bothered by having such preferences, at least no more than one is bothered by liking salty food or green parks, yet not be a Nazi or prone to violence.

Indeed I think a good argument can be made not only that large number of such people lived in the 19th and 20th century, but that we probably have millions of them living today in say a place like Japan.

And that they are mostly pretty decent and ok people.

Edit: Sorry! I didn't see the later comments already covering this. :)

This is missing Racist4:

Someone whose preferences result in disparate impact.

Thank you for the link!

Checking out some of his other videos and links I found this podcast on the topic rather interesting commentary.

Especially the summary of facts starting at the 23 minute mark.

2David Althaus11y
Link doesn't work. Here is a new one [].
Yes I listened to that podcast as well. I am much more confident that Zimmerman was not the attacker than I was about the innocence of Amanda Knox []. His instant demonization and near lynching (people putting out a dead or alive bounty) seems a very troubling development for American society.
And I'd honestly rather see heretics burned at a stake or whatever than allow some well-meaning subversives to crash that dreamtime. I'm not waking up, my friends & family are not waking up, anyone whom I sympathize with is not waking up - the most I'd be okay with is an AI or augmented human dedicated to observing the "waking" reality! You want to know why, don't you? You consider that a hysterical overreaction? Well, know this (but you already do, of course): there are essentially two types of brains - some rather unusual and aberrant ones are nourished by absorbing truth, but to most it's pure, unspeakable torture that shouldn't be acknowledged, yet alone rationally contemptated. Even if the stakes are enormous. Sure, we have hypocrisy as our saving grace, and we might get an AI to do the contemptating for us eventually. but generally there's a vast divide between people like you who want the Truth, and most folks. And I'm very, very unsure that I shouldn't just support the majority here.

(I'm actually integrating a sinister-yet-rationalist one world government based on these fears in my science fantasy novel - instead of a generic villainous empire I started out with - except that in my story it was formed by voices of moderation in high places after the Axis victory in WW2 and the ensuing cold war, not as the radical elitist movement that I can phantom it as in the real world.)

That is a very interesting concept! I'd love to read more about it, if you are writing in English and have any drafts you would like someone to read or will eventually publish, please make a post on LW!

SYNOPSIS: The novel's background is that Nazi and Japanese research into the nature of reality in an attempt to access "magic" or create "ontotechnological weapons" (credit for the word "Ontotechnology" goes to EY) pretty much broke the self-sealing "reality bubble" of Earth, placed there by an interdimensional supercivilization fighting its own civil war for the Universe itself. That supercivilization's factions are perceived as "Angels" and "Demons"; they have made themselves into ontologically basic mental entities and the former are trying to impose absolute objective morality upon the Universe (which IS absolutely good and benign for any species that comes within its influence) while the latter are ruthless anarchists and opppose any rules at all, especially deontological ones. As humans were predicted to have unusually strong reality-warping potential, Earth was sealed away in a local ceasefire that forbade both recruiting from it. After the "bubble" began to tear, the "demons", acting without any hierarchy, just spontaneously invaded, making some people into their playthings, dragging others away for use as psychic slave-soldiers and helping start WW3 in the ongoing panic. As Japan and the Reich, blaming each other, were preparing to obliterate the remnants of civilization, powerful technocratic elements on both sides independently launched coups, came to an agreement and instated a new world order that was essentially a megacorporation (I thought of this before reading any Moldbug). It shaped humanity into a great and complex hierarchy, where daily strife and the fullfillment of urges by the population would accumulate the "psychic" reality-warping energies in huge resonators to drain every drop of them, including from people gifted enough to become "mages". The pooled energy was used to assist in brainwashing the masses, as a shield to keep rampaging demons away from the major arcologies, and to lash out at the barren and twisted Wastelands, where barbaric
Unfortunately for you, I'm writing in Russian, as attempting something novel-length in English would've at this point only become a drain of my mental energy; I'll need another decade of practice before I can use it as easily as Russian.

Even today you see the more extreme elements of the Right scouring the net in what can be described as a search for ammunition, their bottom-line being already as entrenched as that of the Left extremists.

Why does right wing extremism scare you so much more than left wing extremism when the former is utterly despised as the definition of evil by most Westerners while the latter is only ever lukewarmly condemned?

Do extreme right wingers have some particular super power that I'm not aware of? The right wing are the guys who have been on a losing streak s... (read more)

Having beliefs that correspond to reality?
Sort of yes! I've always been a little terrified of the power of naked, unashamed technocracy, of either despotic or Randian aspect. Even the more ruthless bits of Moldbug's (rather comfortable and watered-down) technocratic fascism are, I fear, hardly a glimpse of what's to come, if the "rationality" of geeks and engineers, finally free from either today's humanist quasi-theocracy and the sober bounds of old-time coonservatism, gets free rein. Perhaps many here on LW, especially non-neurotypical people (who I tend to sympathize with a lot, but also be wary of if their condition includes any change in empathy) would be tempted by such a Ubermensch thing. Think of a hybrid of Speer, Eichmann and a weak UFAI and you'll understand how this nightmare of mine goes. (I'm actually integrating a sinister-yet-rationalist one world government based on these fears in my science fantasy novel - instead of a generic villainous empire I started out with - except that in my story it was formed by voices of moderation in high places after the Axis victory in WW2 and the ensuing cold war, not as the radical elitist movement that I can phantom it as in the real world.)

Naturally, I don't see how I implied they wouldn't be. I just said that we are under no automatic obligation to signal our preferences for cryonics when we put up our rationalist hats. Even if one is convinced that cryonics would be an excellent policy according to one's values one can still judge the cost of agitating for it or advertising it to be too high.

Quietly agreeing that cryonics is the best course of action without making main posts about how awesome it is and everyone should do it might be better for our community than doing so.

Sam0345 is sometimes right.

Also eloquent rational reactionary thought is bad and unwelcome on LW? Why? I though rationality dosen't come with a political package. If we are worried about signalling ditching our support for Cryonics would probably help more.

Of course he's sometimes right, and of course no ideological label is bad in itself, judged in a vacuum.
It comes with an intention to not treat questions of fact and policy as political packages that can be ditched for reasons other than evidence about their truth and utility.

That democracy can reliably be used as an applause light is a sign that we as a society agree it is indeed a good thing.

Even if society-at-large agrees something is good, the LW community may disagree in whole or in part. Other things society-at-large treats as good and applause lights include: * Belief in belief * Deathism * Tabooing tradeoffs of sacred values like human life
Or, if I model human behavior correctly, it could also have been as sign that we as a society at one point agreed that it is a good thing but now agree that we agree that it is a reliable applause light. (But I don't think democracy-approval has devolved to that level yet. We actually do seem to think it is a good idea.)
But not a sign that it is indeed a good thing.

Silphium was reputed to have birth controlling properties because its seeds were heart-shaped. I was talking about something a little more... reliable... such as, say, Premarin.

You got it wrong. It is the other way around.

There has been some speculation about the connection between silphium and the traditional heart shape (♥). The symbol is remarkably similar to the Egyptian "heart soul" (ib). The sexual nature of that concept, combined with the widespread use of silphium in ancient Egypt for birth control, and the fact that silphium seeds

... (read more)

Years six through ten depend on unforseen variables for whether there will be protracted suppression of luddites and conservatives, or if my reputation precedes me sufficiently that Rome begs me to induct her into my Constitutional Republic of Aligned City-States.

Through a careful management of new agricultural, medical, economic, industrial, and military technologies as above, conquering Rome would be easily achievable within 5-10 years at the absolute most.

Silly Logos01. Do you think you will get any of this done in a Constitutional Republic? In pract... (read more)

Well, I'd start out as god-emperor and dictator for life, but I'd try to keep myself from having an actual successor... (even if it didn't really work, just introducing the notion would eventually cause it to stabilize to that effect.) Indeed. Luckily these folks would not yet have been immunized to Nazi-style propaganda campaigns or other forms of indoctrination. This is one additional reason why I focused on propaganda and publication. I'd expect to face certain failure in achieving the total optimal result, but could at the very least implement a tendency towards these models. If I treat myself as an aberration to the system, and create a power structure that could survive me -- assuming I had a good fifty or so years to institutionalize it in the eyes and ears of mankind, I could spend the last ten or fifteen years gradually introducing the parliamentary rule; handing over more and more political power to the Senate in a graceful manner, until I'm seen as more of an advisory role than an actual power figure. That would be an end-state goal, though.

These include factories, vacuum tubes (and through them early-tech varieties of computers), birth control and other forms of concerns for quality-of-life, and various forms of chemistry and so on.

Are you sure this is a good idea considering modern Western civilization hasn't yet demonstrated the survivability of such technology? Let alone an upstart society in underpopulated Roman Spain. In any case the ancients did know means of birth control and it at various points sapped the power of the Roman state.

Silphium was reputed to have birth controlling properties because its seeds were heart-shaped. I was talking about something a little more... reliable... such as, say, Premarin. As to the survivability of such technology -- TFR explosions are a problem. birth control would be introduced to cut down overpopulation resultant from implementing immunological practices (vaccination and antibiotics.) The problems of modern fertility rate have far, far less to do with birth control and far more to do with the economics of raising children in a postindustrial environment. Even then, it turns out that TFR is showing a reversal of the declining trend in the last few years. Overall I'd say there's pretty little to worry about. Especially since I'd have a good five decades of longevity to play with; I could pretty reliably introduce computing and electronics within that window, and that would be enough to ensure humanity develop AGI sometime in the next few centuries.

Obviously you are right on that. I should have said:

Also [ we as a society ] agree democracy is a good thing this isn't even very political.

What I really meant by this is that Democracy is something very well entrenched and accepted in Western society and even LessWrong. Dissent from democracy isn't threatening heresy it is the mark of an eccentric.

Paul Graham has written quite extensively of why some things are considered "threatening heresy", and other things mere eccentricity. Ultimately, he concludes that in order for something to be tabooed, it must be threatening to some group that is powerful enough to enforce the taboo, but not powerful enough that the can safely ignore what their critics say about them. Democracy is currently so entrenched in western civilization that it doesn't have to give a fuck if a few people here and there criticize it occasionally.

Yes I fully agree. But it shouldn't be underestimated that when it comes to non-democratic forms of government what kind of people are in power genuinely does have a big impact on how the country is run.

Wanting a philosopher king isn't a bad idea if you aren't mistaken about the philosopher king in question.

What kind of people are in power has a big impact under all forms of government, democracy included.
Or about your definition of "Philosopher king" in the first place. The character of Marcus Aurelius fit the preferences of those in Rome who dreamt of such a philosopher king; yet he was a poor ruler who displayed apathy - including going against his moral intuitions so as not to actually do anything, like finding gladiatorial games distasteful but making no attempt to limit them - and mediocre crisis management

When people talk about the importance of democracy, it is never democracy as it has ever actually functioned, with the politicians that have actually been elected, and the policies that have actually been implemented. It is always democracy as people imagine it will operate once they succeed in electing "the right people" — by which they mean, people who agree almost completely with their own views, and who are consistent and incorruptible in their implementation of the resulting policies.

--Ben O'Neill, here

Considering the above quote can be u... (read more)

Do we agree on that? I think there are quite a few on LessWrong who are no more in favour of democracy than Ben O'Neill. Or by linking "democracy" to the Sequences post on applause lights, do you mean to imply you mean the opposite of that sentence? Yet it is embedded between two others apparently intended straightforwardly.

I don't think everyone here would agree that democracy is a good thing.

The same is true of people who call for a dictatorship or any non-democratic form of government. They also always imagine it will be governed by "the right people", and imagine all the things "the right people" could accomplish if freed from the need to listen to the "ignorant mob".

Crazy idea. Maybe Mike was likley to agree with any line of reasoning, true or false, simply because he found himself in a situation where his opinion was utterly out of sync with that of his peer group.

I don't know why but I can imagine the exact same situation 200 years earlier where Mikey was the only one in the group who voted for that snake Lincoln and after some rational thought realized his reasons where wrong and we had a happy evening discussing whether the union will hold rather than calling him a traitor.

Oh? Go right ahead, I've got karma to spare.

This is the wrong way to take down votes.

I'm arguing about people's tone, politeness and image here, not something important to my life.

Ok from now on I won't modify comments after posting for this debate.

Edit: Starting after this one!

Or you can just include edits as "Edited to add: X" Then it's perfectly clear, and you can edit freely. You just can't prove that's all you did.

I don't ever modify them after reading someone else's statements. It is just that I often post and then reread my comment and find a point is in need of clarification and immediately hit edit and start fixing it. Most of the time no one notices since responses come 5 or 15 or 200 minutes later.

But if you'd like to keep this more real-timeish, I have no problem from with waiting longer before hitting "comment" and then leaving them unchanged. Sorry for any inconvenience. In any case weren't the above two comments last modified before you posted yours?

Before I posted mine, maybe - I didn't check - but I was on a static page referring to an unedited parent when I wrote my replies.

If people don't want to buy it, sucks to be you!

From what kind of a position are people choosing to buy? The veil of ignorance? Lol.

You can't choose to buy or not buy a spot somewhere in mind-space without already being somewhere in mind-space.

The above holds for either. Erratio's formulation was:

It sounds very much like you're saying that no one would choose to be part of a minority culture if they weren't forced into it by non-acceptance.

I think it would be trivial by a superinteligence to design a culture that no one would choose any other culture over, yet wouldn't be a very pleasant place to live. And if superinteligence can do this, why could something like this arise due to memetic evolution? Religious and ideological memeplexes are already examples of weaker but dangerous beasts of this kind.

You keep editing your comments after you post them and then my replies look really poorly targeted.

I use it in the technical legal sense and made that explicit too.

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (A

... (read more)

You do realize we are talking about retention of children raised in a culture right? Orgasmium cults and brainwashing indoctrinators would tend to out compete most others by such measures. A cult worshipping a baslisk that hacks your brain into absolute loyalty would also win out.

Optimizing for allure will not optimize for welfare. At least not under these mechanisms of "choice". It also means our value sets can be out competed by really convincing paperclippers.

From the perspective of many traditional cultures Westerners may as well be Supper Happy people.

The problem with 'orgasmium cults' is, they have a hard time producing anything valuable enough to outsiders to be able to maintain economic power proportionate to their nominal population. Eventually it's just a heap of functionally insensate larvae starving themselves into irrelevance.
I thought we'd drifted away from that particular spin on the scenario as of erratio's comment.

It sounds very much like you're saying that no one would choose to be part of a minority culture if they weren't forced into it by non-acceptance.

Not really, just that for some minorities implementation of such a policy would produce non-acceptance rates would result in genocidal (by the UN definition of the legal terms rather than colloquial use) levels of assimilation. It does a community little good if only 0.5 or 1 or 1.5 child per generation would choose to remain part of it.

If that is what you meant, wouldn't that imply that destroying that min

... (read more)
A sufficiently dedicated group could just keep childbirthing in-house rather than trusting hospitals.

for some minorities implementation of such a policy would produce non-acceptance rates would result in genocidal levels of assimilation

I'm with Alicorn on this one: if your members don't want to be in your community, sucks to be your community.

what if the minority culture's values differ on this?

Maybe they should make more of an effort to convince their members that their community is worth being a part of rather than using mechanisms like shunning and mainstream stigmatism to enforce membership.

it would really upset groups like say Haredim Jews

Somehow I can't bring myself to be bothered by this


This is kind of a pet peeve of mine. "Genocide" has really strong negative moral valence in most people's minds because the last time somebody tried it, it involved killing millions of people. Throwing it around in situations that don't involve death seems... not inaccurate per se, but still disingenuous.

Good point, but what if the minority culture's values differ on this?

For some reason my brain decided to recast this question as though the minority culture were a corporation selling a product at a price (non-full-inclusion in majority culture translated into money). If people don't want to buy it, sucks to be you! I don't care if your values say they ought to or if it will make you sad. Change product or market product but do not force its purchase on anyone.

Why stop at cuckoldry, where the child is still genetically half one's spouse's? Outright cuckcooing! Swap everybody's kids around in the hospital!

Terrible idea to try actually implement in a multicultural society, since for visible minorities it amounts to cultural genocide. What are the odds the child they get actually assimilate to their culture if he can easily pass in greater society as a member of the privileged one?

Unless one factors in ethnicity in who gets who... which is just a horrible can of worms.

It sounds very much like you're saying that no one would choose to be part of a minority culture if they weren't forced into it by non-acceptance. If that is what you meant, wouldn't that imply that destroying that minority culture is better than forcing people to continue being part of it?

Stolen generation isn't relevant here since it wasn't reciprocal - the children were taken, not replaced by white children who were then raised in Aboriginal commmunities.

Let's do the impossible and think the unthinkable! I must know what those secrets are, no matter how much sleep and comfort I might lose.

Anarcho-capitalists are right.

Most upper class and wealthy jobs are actually rent seeking activities as argued in this video by fellow LessWrong user Aurini.

Yep, Anarcho-capitalism is the best idea I can think of to fit that bill.

I may not necessarily agree with that particular video but Aurini's channel is pure contrarian & rationalist goodness. Its very depressing he only has a few hundred views per video. These two videos seems somewhat relevant:

Edit: Added a few more sort of relevant videos.

White people love feeling guilty and signalling moral superiority to other white people. I think that's partially genetic btw. Most other people on the planet are not such annoying moral poseurs. I don't have any real data to back me on this claim but anecdotal evidence is pretty consistent on this

This almost reads like you are trying to hint at something but for the life of me I can't figure out what. Nope. No idea.

Could someone make explicit what is being hinted at? I fear that I am missing the signal.
Didn't catch that implication before. Edit: Just wanted to make clear that I'm not endorsing it.

This seems false and certainly contradicts Putnam (see sibling comment), who gives historical reasons for thinking these effects will vanish in the long term.

I obviously think he is wrong.

In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30 000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups. Although limited to American data, it puts into question both the contact hypothesis and conflict theory in inter-ethnic relations. According to conflict theory, distrust between the ethnic groups wi

... (read more)
Note that the original claim said, "Too much ethnic diversity kills liberal social democracy." This seems false and certainly contradicts Putnam (see sibling comment), who gives historical reasons for thinking these effects will vanish in the long term. In the narrow matter of support for a welfare state, the source I found earlier [] purports to show that ethnic diversity as such has little to no effect.
Well, this certainly leads me to change my view, but perhaps not in the way you think. At first I doubted this evidence (and I still wonder how much of it people could replicate). I would expect contact with different people to reduce fear of outsiders. Indeed, Putnam [] suggests as much and this later source [,31] confirms it -- having neighbors from a different ethnic group increases inter-group trust. Yet the same sources claim that an ethnically diverse neighborhood reduces trust in 'hoods and neighbors. I didn't get the impression that racial prejudice started out strong enough to explain this, though I could be wrong. I think y'all may have buried the lede here. If these and the other results you quoted hold, then maybe all altruism comes from tribal instincts and ethnic diversity interferes with our evolved tribal sense (until the mental categories change, about which more in a second). This might explain the greater participation in marches and reform groups. The loss of a tribe leads to desire for a new one.

High class people unknowingly wage class war against low class people by promoting liberal social norms that they can handle but induce dysfunction in the lower classes (drug abuse, high divorce rates, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, more violence, ... ).

Reminds me of this.

Load More