All of patrissimo's Comments + Replies

I've had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions

As a former Evangelical Polyamorist, now a born-again Monogamist, I enthusiastically endorse items 1 & 2 in this comment.

It can be thought of as the cultural equivalent of Algernon's Law - any small cultural change is a net evolutionary disadvantage. I might add "previously accessible to our ancestors", since the same principle doesn't apply to newly accessible changes, which weren't previously available for cultural optimism. This applies to organizing via websites. It does not apply to polyamory (except inasmuch as birth control, std preven... (read more)

Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts

Eliezer Yudkowsky's keyboard only has two keys: 1 and 0.

Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts

The speed of light used to be much lower before Eliezer Yudkowsky optimized the laws of physics.

Eliezer Yudkowsky Facts

Eliezer Yudkowsky doesn't have a chin, underneath his beard is another brain.

Reasons for being rational

As a contrarian rationalist, I can assure you that my attitudes are the results of my personality & upbringing, not some bold brave conscious decision. I was always different, enough that conforming wouldn't have worked, so finding true & interesting & positive-attention-capturing ways to be different was my best path. The result is that I'm biased towards contrarian theses, which I think is useful for improving group rationality in most cases, but still isn't rational.

Rational Reading: Thoughts On Prioritizing Books

I am starting to believe that Patri is motivated by status and worldly accomplishment much more than by learning or curiosity, and if Patri is indeed (as this article suggests) forgoing opportunities to take pleasure in learning for the sake of optimizing his increases in status or accomplishment, well, then even though Patri certainly is a fine and commendable young man, that is a mistake

Yes, I am indeed attempting to choose my reading based on how it supports my consciously chosen goals, rather than simply the vague non-goal of "learning" or... (read more)

0[anonymous]11yI think his point is that a lot of delusions are high status these days (and probably in any generation, though the high status delusions change from generation to generation), so prioritizing the pursuit of status over knowledge puts you at risk of becoming deluded. I'm interpreting this: Since he's reading Less Wrong, he probably is familiar with Robin Hanson, and Robin Hanson frequently writes about high status delusions.
Rational Reading: Thoughts On Prioritizing Books

I use audio books / podcasts some, but I don't run, have a minimal commute, and so don't end up getting much time in.

Rational Reading: Thoughts On Prioritizing Books

I'm pretty good at getting rid of the worst things, still trying to figure out what the best things are.

Rational Reading: Thoughts On Prioritizing Books

I see, that makes sense. I find it easiest to prioritize within a domain like "books", vs. among all possible skill-increasing activities. Also, when it comes to "generally increasing my knowledge / improving my map", that is something that I think it makes sense to allocate a fixed bucket of time to, although one should also compare alternatives like documentaries, blogs, and conversations as ways of doing it.

Verifying Rationality via

I personally know many people who have made those figures in the past, although high-stakes online poker has gotten much tougher in the past few years and it takes extremely high skill to make that much now.

I have personally made about $240/hr at online poker ($200 NLH SNGs on Party Poker back before the UIGEA). But I couldn't make anywhere near that nowadays.

2NancyLebovitz11yMight that suggest that we're beginning to see the system getting saturated with skilled players?
Verifying Rationality via

200 hours is 1 month of 50 hour weeks, or 2 months of 25 hour weeks. Is it really that big a deal for your results to only matter month to month rather than day to day? I mean, yeah, it can be frustrating during a bad week, but it's not like the long run takes years.

Verifying Rationality via

I agree with most of this, but I don't think it dilutes the brand to focus on our comparative advantage, namely highlighting the aspects of poker most relevant to rationality training.

Thanks for mentioning Tommy - I should ask him if he wants to make any guest posts.

Rational Reading: Thoughts On Prioritizing Books

Once a prioritization system is set up, it's then trivial to decide whether to read the top book or do something else based on how your estimate of the value of doing so compares to your alternative activities. Without a prioritization system, it doesn't matter whether you have fixed an amount of time or not - there are vastly more books to read than anyone has time in 8,760 hours per year, so you must prioritize.

So prioritization gets you flexible reading time, flexible reading time doesn't get you prioritization, so I don't see how pointing it out is re... (read more)

4paulfchristiano11yMy point was that questions like "What is the goal of reading?" don't really arise when optimizing generally, only when optimizing reading. If I want to improve my performance at some task and reading is the best way to do it then so be it, but its not clear why I would be comparing the benefits of "reading to improve at foo" to the benefits of "reading to make conversation" in particular rather than the benefits of exercise (say). When I read now it is normally because I have some pressing reason to read a particular book. The things I read (which are typically either very technical or descriptions/analysis of some event or person I am curious about) would not be turned up by trying to prioritize among books. I do agree that prioritizing books is a useful activity if you spend much time reading, and that thinking about optimization--however you want to slice it up--is generally a good idea. I like your post. I was just offering an observation which I have found helpful (and which has caused me not to spend much time either reading or thinking about which books to read).
Verifying Rationality via

It seems odd that you are criticizing the site for not replicating the specific hand discussion which is done so well elsewhere, while simultaneously wondering how we will differentiate.

Obviously, we will differentiate by not writing about the topics which are written about elsewhere ad nauseam, and instead add new thoughts, not often written about, and likely to be of interest to this audience - namely the connections between poker & becoming more rational. Perhaps these new thoughts are not as fundamental for learning how to win at poker, but they are different, and we believe, useful.

Towards a Bay Area Less Wrong Community

FYI: Rumor says the plan for the South Bay meetup is to experiment with a variety of icebreakers, rationality games, and other themed evenings & see what works.

Less Wrong at Burning Man 2011

Would be awesome if you can be in Playagon - or near us!

Less Wrong NYC: Case Study of a Successful Rationalist Chapter

I'm interested in hearing a bit more on meeting structure ("Meetup Topics" heading), as well as how it relates to time progression (what types of activities work best for forming the tribe vs. later maintaining it).

Less Wrong NYC: Case Study of a Successful Rationalist Chapter

This post is wonderful! The general category of "codified knowledge about best practices on how to do something important gained from doing it for hundreds of hours" is way underrepresented on LW. The density of practical experience makes it harder to write than finding a study or bias and musing about it, but it also makes it a lot more useful.

I look forward to helping replicate these practices in the Bay Area. Although achieving gender balance here is going to be a pretty significant challenge...


You get gender balance (or closer to it) by having members invite women they know who seem like they might be interested. I got involved because a friend and fellow-LessWronger invited me. Thinking about the other women... we have a couple who were there from the beginning, a friend of one of the old-timers, Divia whom people knew from the West Coast, and some others whose "origin stories" I don't know.

I don't think you have to paint it pink or anything. Just ordinary networking. (You might possibly have an extra challenge in that San Francisco has more men than New York, proportionally -- but at the scale of an in-person meetup I'm not sure that matters.)

Fun and Games with Cognitive Biases

Feed confirmatory evidence to others, give them tests to run which you know beforehand are confirmatory

This is not a way to take advantage of confirmation bias. Confirmation bias means that others look for confirming evidence for their true theories, and ignore disconfirming evidence. This process is not much affected by you adding extra confirmatory evidence - they can find plenty on their own. Instead, it is a way to fool rational people - for example, Bayesians who update based on evidence will update wrong if fed biased evidence. Which doesn't r... (read more)

1Kaj_Sotala10yAnother way to take advantage of confirmation bias is exemplified by horoscopes: offering people predictions that are sufficiently vague that no matter what happens, people can find a way to interpret the prediction as having come true. Also, someone who wanted to be respected by many people could write semi-nuanced opinion texts that could be plausibly interpreted to favor either side in a debate. In the "best" case, supporters of both sides will read the text and like you for being on their side.
3wedrifid11yIt should be noted that it is a way to fool Bayesians over whom you have some kind of epistemic advantage. That is, you have to be for some reason better able to provide deceptive data than they are at accounting for your ability or inclination to deceive. That is hard to do without an overwhelming advantage in one of intelligence, power, knowledge or anonymity.
0David_Gerard11yYep. This works pretty well, too. Useful phrases: "As you already know ..." "... and you know all this already" "I haven't told you anything you didn't know already".
Optimal Employment

Step 0: Get a time machine Step 1: Go back in time and tell yourself not to waste time on a degree, but to go invent Google or Facebook or something useful Step 2: Profit!

4TheOtherDave11yOr perhaps: Step 1: Go back in time, etc. Step 2: Profit! Step 3: Build a time machine and go back to before step 1 and give it to yourself.
Procedural Knowledge Gaps

Couldn't it just be an erroneous application of (an intuited version of) Newton's law of cooling, which says that heat transfer is linearly proportional to heat difference? They assume that the thermostat temperature is setting the temperature of the heating element, and then apply their intuited Newton's Law.

Seems pretty rational to me.

1blashimov9yFor example, this absolutely works with say, an electric stove.
Some rationality tweets

Lately I've been thinking about if and how learning math can improve one's thinking in seemingly unrelated areas.

This seems like a classic example of the standard fallacious defense of undirected research (that it might and sometimes does create serendipitous results)?

Yes, learning something useless/nonexistent might help you learn useful things about stuff that exists, but it seems awfully implausible that it helps you learn more useful things about existence than studying the useful and the existing. Doing the latter will also improve your thinking i... (read more)

Efficient Charity: Do Unto Others...

Ok, great, I'm glad I misunderstood.

Efficient Charity: Do Unto Others...

Completely agree with your general point on marginal analysis (although I'm a TDT skeptic), and am a fan of GiveWell, but this is trivially wrong:

It is not possible for everyone to behave this way in elections: no voter is able to consider the existing distribution of votes before casting their own.

This seems to assume away information about the size of the electorate as well as any predictive power about the outcome. Surely the marginal benefit of a Presidential vote in a small swing state is massively higher than in a large solidly Democratic state,... (read more)

4HoldenKarnofsky11yPatrissimo, fair enough. I was thinking that voters can't vote with the same degree of knowledge of the existing situation that they can have with blood donations. Arguments over TDT certainly seem more relevant to voting than to blood donations. But you are right that voters have lots of relevant information about the likely distribution of votes that can be productively factored into their decisions regardless of the TDT debate. Glad to hear you're a fan of GiveWell.
Efficient Charity: Do Unto Others...

At the risk of provoking defensiveness I will say that it really sounds like you are trying to rationalize your preferences as being rational when they aren't.

I say this because the examples that you were giving (local food kitchen, public radio), when compared to truly efficient charities (save lives, improve health, foster local entrepreneurship), are nothing like "save 9 kids + some other benefits" vs. "save 10 kids and nothing else". It''s more like "save 0.1 kids that you know are in your neighborhood" vs. "save 10 ... (read more)

3[anonymous]10yLet's say you want to start a school, because you like education. You could found a very large school that educates lots of children, but at a so-so quality. Or you could spend the same amount of instruction to make a tiny, amazing school, a little gem. Some people might find it more fulfilling to build the small, wonderful school. When you've achieved your goal, a tiny corner of the world is just perfect, and it's a part you have control over. I think this is part of the reason people sometimes are more motivated to improve conditions in their own country than abroad. On some level, I'd rather make one person really happy and successful than make 100 people just barely better off than dead.
4Elizabeth11yI agree with you completely about consumption vs. charity, and had even mentioned the concept in my point about NPR donation guilt. I also agree that the close number is wildly inaccurate, but even in context it wasn't applied to local charities and it was intended to make the point that multiple factors could and should be considered when picking charities, even when the importance multipliers on some factors are orders of magnitude higher than for other factors. I hope this clarifies my meaning without defensiveness, because none was meant.
Working hurts less than procrastinating, we fear the twinge of starting

I agree extremely on the issue of procrastination not being restful, this is a standard theme in modern productivity writing. Procrastination (like reading blogs / tweets / etc) is a sort of worst of both worlds, it is neither useful nor restful, it passes the time and avoids immediate pain without providing pleasure or renewal.

That's why The Energy Project, Pomodoro, Zen Habits, etc. recommend that you schedule renewal breaks into your day - at a minimum midmorning, lunch, and midafternoon. I think the deliberate practice literature recommends breaks ev... (read more)

Social conversations with co-workers are also good

Isn't this supposed to be a major dividing line in human personalities? That is, extroverts can recharge by talking to people, and introverts need to recharge after talking to people?

Tallinn-Evans $125,000 Singularity Challenge

Wow, SIAI has succeeded in monetizing Less Wrong by selling karma points. This is either a totally awesome blunder into success or sheer Slytherin genius.

Some rationality tweets

Learning math sure isn't useless, and it seems to mostly consist of thinking about useless or nonexistent things.

I learned a lot of math (undergraduate major), and while it entertained me, it has been almost completely useless in my life. And the forms of math I believe to be most useful and wish I'd learned instead (statistics) are useful because they are so directly applicable to the real world.

What useful math have you learned that doesn't involve reference to useful or existent things?

1nshepperd11yI've hypothesised before that learning math might be useful because a) you get lots of practice in understanding abstraction and how abstract objects can meaningfully be manipulated using rules, and b) you hopefully learn that proofs are nobody's opinion. So basically a lot of practice in using basic logic. Neither of which require study of useful or existing things. Though obviously it would be preferable if the actual content were about useful stuff as well, to get double the benefit, it's not inherently useless.
0Peter_de_Blanc11yReal analysis is the first thing that comes to mind. Linear algebra is the second thing. Lately I've been thinking about if and how learning math can improve one's thinking in seemingly unrelated areas. I should be able to report on my findings in a year or two.
-2shokwave11yI first learned calculus using infinitesimals.
New Year's Resolutions

I worry that new year's resolutions are a Schelling point for failed self-improvement that, by using a fundamentally flawed approach, tend to fail and then discourage people from future attempts at positive change.

Can we try to switch to the meme of "Annual retreat & reflect about one's life, goals, and habits", rather than these so frequently failed "resolutions", whose very name implies that the solution is more "resolve", and thus the problem is insufficient "resolve", rather than insufficient experimentation,... (read more)

What I've learned from Less Wrong

"That's how great arguments work: you agree with every step (and after a while you start believing things you didn't originally)."

Also how great propaganda works.

If you are going to describe a "great argument" I think you need to put more emphasis on it being tied to the truth rather than being agreeable. I would say truly great arguments tend not to be agreeable, b/c the real world is so complex that descriptions without lots of nuance and caveats are pretty much always wrong. Whereas simplicity is highly appealing and has a low cognitive processing cost.

3shokwave11yOh. I only agree with argument steps that are truthful.
Rationality Quotes: December 2010

I found this quote brilliant solely because of the incongruous "like" in there. It makes the whole thing turn into a Deep Mystery instead of a Deep Saying.

After all, wouldn't someone who does the important things also stick to the most important words, ie those with content, unlike "like"? If so, how delightful is the erroneous arrogance of this quote! If not, what a fascinating challenge to my assumptions about the implications of language pattern!

Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

Apparently this community really values the combination of wit, brevity & correctness, which are all good things.

Unfortunately, since your brief witty correct remark was about something irrelevant, that means we are rewarding entertainment that wins status/appreciation without contributing to meaningful discussion, relative to deep and/or thoughtful insights. Quite understandable, but I can see why you were horrified - one expects better of LWers.

I interpret this as evidence against the correctness of the elitism strain in LW culture. We are all monkeys, the great thing about LW is that we know it and want to change it - not that we have.

Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

I don't think this is true. I know people who "assume good faith", and they are amazing a a pleasure to debate with - it never becomes argument. But I have not found this to be correlated with analytical thinking - if anything, the opposite.

Rather, my experience with analytical people (incl. myself) is that they just don't see the emotional subtext. They see the argument, the logical points, and they don't even think about the status implications, who challenged whose authority, and so forth. It's not as pleasant to think of we non-neurotypic... (read more)

Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

I have also found that being able to speak bluntly and off the top of my head about what I believe to be true is enormously valuable for me in truth-seeking. Having friends and forums where that is the culture is immensely valuable. Yet learning how to not do that - how to use my "polite pen" - has also been immensely valuable to me in getting my ideas across to a broader audience.

Each has it's place, and I think what most LWers need to hear is the point in this post, but I think it would have been clearer if all the examples were from the workplace / regular life. Then it wouldn't have had this challenge to LW culture you perceived.

Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

If we're going to talk about the cognitive framing effects of language, as the original post did, how about your use of the word "Mundane"?

To me, it seems actively harmful to accurate thinking, happiness, and your chance of doing good in the world. The implication is characterizing most humans as a separate lower class, with the suggestion of contempt and/or disgust for those inferior beings, which has empirically led to badness (historically: genocide. in my personal experience: it has been poisonous to Objectivism and various atheist groups I... (read more)

0MichaelVassar8yTwo examples. Sexual selection and speciation. Nuff' said.
2shokwave11yInteresting. The terms 'mundane' and 'smart' always pointed out to me that I am part of a group that is perceived as 'other' by some people. I have to be more Machiavellian at times when dealing with mundane people ('opposed to smart' more than 'not smart'), but I don't consider most people mundane. That said, I have no idea if this interpretation is how other people see it, or if it's not the intended interpretation.
Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

This is an awesome response and extension, although it doesn't invalidate the point that we should learn what signals our words will give and choose them consciously. It's basically always better to understand and use the subtext. Whether using it to make sure you don't accidentally press the emotional buttons of a good-willed collaborator, or understanding when others are using it to exploit you.

In my experience, relentless politeness + authenticity (don't give up your basic point, but phrase it very nicely) is a great help at defeating setups. In the ... (read more)

Defecting by Accident - A Flaw Common to Analytical People

You seem to be assuming that what you want to hear is how people should be learning to communicate ("I'd prefer they skip it"), but part of the point is that we are not like most people. If you want to communicate effectively with the broader population, then you have to focus on what they like to hear, not judge communication suggestions based on whether you would like hearing it.

Also, I love brevity, but I charitably assumed that the politeness examples were exaggerated to make the point. Exaggerated examples, while they often bother analytic... (read more)

Applause Lights

Yeah, but you'd get lots of applause!

How to Save the World

I think this is missing the primary advice of "work on instrumental rationality." The art of accomplishing goals is useful for the goal of saving the world - and still useful if you change your goal later! (say, to destroying the world, or moving to a new one :) )

So while this is a great list of ways to be instrumentally rational specifically for philanthropy, I think the general tools of instrumental rationality are also useful too (like: have concrete goals, hypothesize how to achieve them, try methods, evaluate them and change based on resul... (read more)

2Louie11yAgreed. I'm surprised I managed to write this whole list without remembering to add that. I think it's one of those fish in water kind of things. I was going out of my way to summarize the points in my mind that I attribute somewhat to LW and instrumental rationality didn't naturally fall into that category when I plumbed my brain for "important things less wrong can teach you about saving the world". I get the feeling that I already absorbed a high enough level of instrumental rationality before I ever made it here that I didn't actually get any additional mileage out of the relevant material on LW about it. In fact, it's so yesterday's news to me that I often forget that others don't have similar predispositions or that others are still developing here and can use pointers to helpful material on the subject. Thanks for reminding me not to take this for granted! I'll add a new section in a few hours. EDIT: Added as the new point #5.
How to Save the World

Love almost all of this. I worry that (3) is making the common rationalist mistake of basing a strategy on the type of person you wish you were rather than the type you are. (Striding toward Unhappiness, we might call it).

So, you wish that your passion for a cause were more strongly correlated with the utilitarian benefit of that cause, and game the instinct to work on what feels good with small gifts while putting most of your effort towards what you think is optimal. But if the result is working on something you aren't as passionate and excited about,... (read more)

The danger of living a story - Singularity Tropes

Anything can be mapped to tropes, but not all tropes are the same. It matters what tropes your life, mission, or organization are mapped to! To skillfully navigate the world (I guess the LW term is "to win") you must know what tropes are being mapped to you, and what tropes your brain sees your identity as fitting into. That way you can manipulate others' perception of you (what stories are they telling about you? How are they telling those stories? Do they gain you status and resources), as well as making sure you aren't fooling yourself.

The danger of living a story - Singularity Tropes

"So part of winning is being able to deal with human susceptibility to think in stories."

Exactly! It is especially relevant if you are trying to grow a following around an idea, which SIAI is. Winning requires wearing your Slytherin hat sometimes, and an effective Slytherin will manipulate the stories that they tell and the stories that are told about them.

1lsparrish11yI read an interesting self-help book recently where the main idea is that you can tell better stories ("hero stories" instead of "victim stories") about yourself, others, and your situation. Be the Hero [] by Noah Blumenthal.
The danger of living a story - Singularity Tropes

Actually, I will comment (for the purposes of authenticity and from the belief that being more transparent about my motivations will increase mutual truth-finding) that while I'm not arguing "against" SIAI, this post is to some degree emerging from me exploring the question of SIAI's organizational instrumental rationality. I have the impression from a variety of angles/sources that it's pretty bad. Since I care about SIAI's success, it's one of the things I think about in the background - why, and how you could be more effective.

When discussing SIAI's instrumental rationality, it's important to remember what its actual goals are. Speaking of story-bias, it's all too easy to pattern-match to "organization promoting some cause they think is important", in which case one easily concludes that SIAI has been a miserable failure because FAI hasn't become a trendy academic research discipline, and Vice Presidents aren't making films about paperclip maximizers.

However, the picture changes somewhat if instead you think in terms of the following (more accurate) caricature of SIAI'... (read more)

0multifoliaterose11yI've had similar thoughts. I would be interested in hearing what room for improvement you see in SIAI's organizational instrumental rationality. I have my own thoughts on this (which have evolved somewhat as I've learned more since making my posts about SIAI back in August). Feel free to PM me if you'd prefer to communicate privately.
The danger of living a story - Singularity Tropes

First, I'm not claiming a connection between truth and tropism, but this idea that everything is equally tropish seems wrong. Not everyone has the role of a protagonist fighting for humanity against a great inhuman evil that only they foresee, and struggling to gather allies and resources before time runs out. Yet Eliezer has that role.

Second, even though tropes apply to everyone's lives to some degree, it matters which tropes they are. For example, someone who sees themselves as a fundamentally misunderstood genius who deserves much more than society h... (read more)

8JamesAndrix11yNo. The UFAI is nonexistent, and therefore noncombatant. I'm not sure Eliezer has even tried to make the case that UFAI is the most likely existential risk. Lots of people see serious huge risks in our future. To say nothing of the near-constant state of death. EY certainly wasn't first with the concept of world-killing UFAI in general, arguably he's late to the game. I can't think of a story in which the protagonist spend lots of time trying to do things the majority doesn't want to try or don't think are hard, but it sounds like a comedy.
The danger of living a story - Singularity Tropes

This is so common as to be an adage: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." ('s_razor)

The danger of living a story - Singularity Tropes

I can see how for your audience, the story-like qualities would be a minus. On the other hand, I think the story bias has to do with how people cognitively process information and arguments. If you can't tell your mission & strategy as a story, it's a lot harder to get across your ideas, whatever your audience.

The battle was meant to be metaphorical - the battle to ensure that AI is Friendly rather than Unfriendly. And I didn't say anything about hostile humans - the problem is indifferent humans not giving you resources.

Also, I'm not arguing agains... (read more)

The battle was meant to be metaphorical - the battle to ensure that AI is Friendly rather than Unfriendly.

By this standard, just about anything worth taking as one's life work will involve a metaphorical battle.

Error detection bias in research

Write several pieces of analysis code, ideally in different languages, and check that the results are the same? Even better, have someone else replicate your analysis code. That way you have a somewhat independent source of confirmation.

Also, use practices like tons of unit testing which minimize the chance for bugs in your code. All this must be done before you see the results, of course.

Is this confirmation bias really that bad in practice? Scientists get credit for upsetting previous consensus. So this may lead potentially disruptive research to ha... (read more)

Politics as Charity

And this argument has what to do with my personal decision to vote?

My choice does not determine the choices of others who believe like me, unless I'm a lot more popular than I think I am.

After saying voting is irrational, the next step for someone who truly cares about political change is to go figure out what the maximal political change they can get for their limited resources is - what's the most efficient way to translate time or dollars into change. I believe that various strategies have different returns that vary by many orders of magnitude.

So ordi... (read more)

6NancyLebovitz11yThere's an organization (sorry no cite, but maybe this story will dredge up the info from other people) which teaches people how to be politically effective. There was a woman who wanted to get a local issue taken care of, but she couldn't get any traction. She went to the organization, and they found a mayor(?) who was running uncontested, and told her how to run against him. If she'd actually run, he'd have needed to do a lot more campaigning, even though he certainly would have won. So he went to her and said, "What do you want?". Her issue was taken care of, and she has continued to be politically active.
Politics as Charity

Wow, so it is accurate for the same reason as the The Wire (based on a study of reality), that's awesome.

Politics as Charity

This is my worldview as well.

Load More