Profile

Cover photo
Andreas Schou
Works at Snake Parliament
Attended Awesome Skeleton Hell College
Lives in Mountain View, California
8,741 followers|39,960,602 views
AboutPostsCollectionsPhotos

Stream

Pinned

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
 
On Moderation: An Ass-Backward Guide to Managing a Community Which Extends From Revolutionary Socialists to Anarcho-Capitalists

(1) When responding as editor, always assume that you are talking to a reasonable person making the most reasonable possible version of their argument. This is not always true in the real world, but this sort of bad-faith good-faith heads off any risk of escalating, tit-for-tat misinterpretation of the other person's argument.

(2) A new member of the community, especially a dissenting member, will often appear to be a troll. Dissenting members who have been socialized to dissent helpfully eventually become valuable members of the community.

(3) Use soft power until you have reached its limits. If the community has a disruptive member who disagrees with you, see if you can get someone who agrees with the disruptive person to intervene on your behalf. It will seem less like you're punishing dissent.

(4) There is no reason to be rude or cruel to someone whom you will not have a continuing relationship with. If you need to exercise hard power -- banning, reporting, excluding -- decide that that's what you need to do, do it, and don't comment on the subject.

(5) Try to be epistemically multilingual. If you can explain a position using only assumptions that you and the other person share, don't try to force a new set of assumptions down their throat. More than likely, they'll just reject your position outright, and you will no longer have anything interesting to talk about.

(6) The most difficult problem an ideological diverse community faces is not antisocial disagreement, but antisocial agreement. It is difficult to convince people that any such thing exists, but community punishment of people who operate outside the editorial consensus can stifle dissent and cause the community to go wildly awry.

(7) Hard apriorists are not a useful part of most conversations. If someone believes he can determine the appropriate federal funds rate from I Think, Therefore I Am, you will probably not have a productive conversation with him, and it is best to politely tell him that he is being ignored.

(8) Biographical details are important. They are anecdotal, but not peripheral. If someone believes they have insights into their own region, ethnicity, profession, gender, government, family, or life experiences, this is likely to be true. What's more, people demand more respect for their own lived experiences than for beliefs which they hold for other reasons.

It is fair to demand that people tread carefully around biographical details and lived experience.

(9) People overgeneralize from their own biographies. Anecdotal experience derived from lived experience is important. It is, however, still anecdotal. If you are inclined to make a strident point based on a biographical argument, it would help if you also went and found some data to support it rather than simply demanding concession from the person you're arguing with.

If you see someone genuinely trying to make a fair argument against your biographical details and lived experience, try to assume that it was made in good faith. 

(10) If you find yourself looking at a Wikipedia page to construct an argument against someone whom you believe to be better-informed on a subject than you, stop. At best, you are denying yourself the opportunity to learn something from a subject matter expert -- even one who turns out to be wrong. At worst, you are about to embarrass yourself. 

(11) Argument about rules of evidence, especially in the middle of another argument,  is seldom productive. If you are aware of the rules of evidence generally adhered to by the people you're arguing with, try to produce evidence which at least meets that standard, and table the argument about evidentiary rules until it can be addressed separately.

(Note: If you have seen this before, and you are seeing it again now, it's because I've pinned the rules for my space to the top of my profile.)
113
36
Ordinary Mevaker Edwin's profile photoAlex Quirk's profile photoIan Rattray's profile photo
17 comments
 
In short form. Keep a good attitude. Do research your opinions or they are just assumptions. Think before you speak and it won,t feel so out of the blue. Be community minded and stay communicate.
Add a comment...

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
 
Sara: If you could be a fly on the wall for any event in history, what would it be?

Andy: Declaration of Independence.

Andy: Wait. No. The pitch meeting where the directors explained to Lil Jon what they wanted to have happen in the video for Turn Down For What.
30
1
Wes Winham's profile photoAndreas Schou's profile photoGarry Boyer's profile photoMahinsa Herath's profile photo
12 comments
 
Good
Add a comment...

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
 
This is genuinely alarming. To be very clear about the timeline: Donald Trump's chief foreign policy advisor was in Moscow, meeting with a former security service official from Fancy Bear, two weeks before Fancy Bear released emails stolen from the DNC.
Carter Page speaks at the graduation ceremony for the New Economic School in Moscow in July. U.S. intelligence officials are seeking to determine whether an American businessman identified by Donald Trump as one of his foreign policy advisers has opened up private communications with senior Russian
76
14
Joshua Lee's profile photoChristopher Paul's profile photoPeter Heimburger's profile photoS Saini's profile photo
94 comments
S Saini
 
+Peter Heimburger nevermind the $700 billion that was extorted from us by the Democrats to bail out the big private banks. That was the biggest scam of the millennium
Add a comment...

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
 
Quantitative Conspiracy Theorizing

So, I've had to pull this link out of the drawer once again. But, really, there's a simpler threshold question: how many suspicious deaths should we see before we start to be worried?

It turns out that it's much more than I thought.

The average person can recognize 50,000 people whom they interact with on a day-to-day basis, and knows the names of somewhere around 3,000 acquaintances. If we assume that (a) a president is likely to know about that number (it is likely to be much larger), that (b) a disproportionate number of those people would be recognizable to the average American, and that (c) the average age of those people is somewhat older than the American median -- I'll put it at age 50 -- then we can expect that around 250 people whom Bill Clinton is acquainted with would have died in every year of his presidency.

This number becomes vastly larger once you expand the definition to include, as the "body-bag" lists do, people who were not meaningfully connected to Clinton. As in: people who worked, at one point, for governmental organizations which Clinton was the head of. But we'll disregard that fact, and similarly disregard the 34 Commerce Department officials who died on Ron Brown's plane in Croatia.

So the question really becomes: of people acquainted with Clinton, how many could be expected to die under suspicious circumstances? If we include "suicide and murder" as being canonically suspicious deaths, we can expect 6.5 suicide deaths per year associated with Clinton and around 3 murder deaths per year. If the distribution were utterly random, we'd expect a total of 76 suspicious deaths associated with Clinton over the term of his presidency.

The largest number I've seen associated with this conspiracy theory is 90, 34 of which were on that single plane in Croatia that ran into a mountainside. On no other evidence (and there is no evidence), I wouldn't be worried.
Decades-old political rumor claims Bill Clinton quietly did away with several dozen people who possessed incriminating evidence about him.
26
1
Mark van Walraven's profile photoNeeraj kashyap's profile photoAdam Weishaupt's profile photoSteve S's profile photo
19 comments
Steve S
 
+Adam Weishaupt Trolling again?
Add a comment...

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
 
Home.
Despite resistance by Idaho’s political leaders, 118 Syrian refugees have moved to the Gem State since last Oct. 1, all of them settling in Boise. That’s more the double the number that have settled in New York and Los Angeles combined.
36
3
Shel Stoneman's profile photoRaheel  Khan's profile photo‫وليد سعد‬‎'s profile photo
51 comments
 
Li lave you
Add a comment...

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
Peter Kirsanow is, of course, wrong on every point. He's even decided that secularism is about sexual freedom, which indicates that he's either woefully hyperbolic or has fully incorporated his rhetoric as premises.

More shockingly, he's wrong about non-discrimination. As it happens, we went nearly a century without racial non-discrimination being part of 13-15A because the court decided it wouldn't be. Lochnerism, famously, had little help for blacks under Jim Crow but found that 14A protected an expansive "freedom of contract".

What I find revealing in each round of religious freedom debate is how wrong, just on basic facts like the procession of cases, its elite defenders are. It's little wonder that deeply devout people find themselves constantly on the defensive: they're sold a false bill of goods by people who are, willfully or not, ignorant of how the law is actually constructed.
Is faith being used to justify discrimination? Are new cultural norms crowding out conservatives? The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights can't decide.
11 comments on original post
23
Andreas Geisler's profile photoSai (saizai)'s profile photoSteve Miller's profile photoThomas ibidapo's profile photo
49 comments
 
Like I always say religion is more of faith than Logic
Add a comment...

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
 
in the timeline we all live in, a virtual reality billionaire is paying neo-Nazis to threaten Jewish reporters with cartoon frogs
59
3
Ishmael Ahmed's profile photoDavid Cameron Staples's profile photoKevyneShandris's profile photoJulian Bond's profile photo
9 comments
 
+David Cameron Staples Things were coming to a head.
Add a comment...

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
 
"Trump is going to win," says political scientist who uses thirteen variables to model nine data points.

Overfit.

It's a thing.

38
5
Damian M Earl ll's profile photoColin Johnson's profile photo
51 comments
 
+Steve S Not just America but the world. Let's not forget that Thatcher adopted the Reagan philosophy as well 
Add a comment...

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
 
The Trump campaign is about ethics in gaming journalism.
 
Welp.
Palmer Luckey, the founder of Oculus Rift, has been keeping busy since he sold the company to Facebook in 2014. One thing he’s done to pass the time, as reported by The Daily Beast, is to financially back (and be named Vice President of) a company dedicated to alt-right meme shitposts.
5 comments on original post
45
5
Jay Gischer's profile photoAdam Weishaupt's profile photoSteve S's profile photo
10 comments
Steve S
 
+Adam Weishaupt Trolling much?
Add a comment...

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
 
One thing that's been interesting this election cycle is the widening of fissures in American conservatism which were undetectable from the left prior to this year.

Since the 1990s, American conservatism has been run in a fundamentally top-down way. Talking points were produced by politicians, disseminated to a relatively small number of top-tier outlets, spread through a larger number of disciplined pundits, and believed by half the country. At the top, politicians were motivated by self-interest; outlets like Fox News were motivated by money and proximity to power; voters were motivated by believing the things which they had been told by this closed, airless media ecosystem.

The pundits in the middle, from the relatively highbrow chamber-music conservatives at National Review to the hawkish neocons at the Weekly Standard to individual blogs and talk radio shows, seemed to be an army which walked in lockstep, diverging to support their individual candidates but eventually reuniting to press the single message dictated at the top. Insofar as their varieties of conservatism differed -- theocon, reformicon, econocon -- they seemed to represent an origin story rather than something which was still an active part of their ideological underpinnings. And this was because conservative media, unlike mainstream media, doesn't actually engage with itself much: if you look at the points of conflict, even between individual pundits on Twitter, they were producing a sort of punditry, but they were not consuming it exclusively. They were consuming the mainstream media, then imposing a sort of conservative lens on it.

When Trump became inevitable, the conservative middlemen suddenly had to contend with each other. No one outside the conservative ghetto could understand why Trump had suddenly risen to national prominence. The answer was inside the conservative media, not outside of it.

It's a tarnished silver lining, but suddenly the ideological underpinnings of conservatism (or, rather, the different varieties of conservatism) have become much more clear, and their arguments much less vapid. Maybe I can finally start reading conservatives outside The American Conservative again. 
33
Steve S's profile photoAnal Beads's profile photoAndres Soolo's profile photo
14 comments
 
Well, that's some misplaced commercial message.
Add a comment...

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
 
Blurgh, this is an awful, awful article. A few points:

(1) This is somehow derived from a single 1996 paper in the Lancet, which found that several genes which cause intellectual disability are on the X chromosome. Those do, in fact, have huge effects on intelligence -- Fragile X syndrome occurs only in boys. So there's something to it.

(2) More recent research has determined that there are two large clusters of genes -- M1 and M3 -- involved in intelligence, and that those genes are spread across both the autosomes and the X chromosome. M3 has about 150 genes in it; M1 has fewer.

(3) For each of those genes, there are significant numbers of single-nucleotide polymorphisms that produce viable results. Those are equally likely (well, except for those on the X chromosome) to be inherited from mothers or fathers.

(4) If it were the case that many more genes were inherited from the mother than the father, you'd end up with two facts which don't yet seem to be in evidence: (a) that men have more variable intelligence than women, and (b) that women are, on the average, more intelligent than men.

The first is because men would be more likely than women to inherit a full, functional set of positive alleles; the second is because women are more likely to inherit a variable set of alleles, and that rare alleles are more likely to cause intellectual deficits than common ones.

49
6
‫أبو جود‬‎'s profile photoZizoo King's profile photo
20 comments
 
Gaudeix l'Aleix 
Add a comment...

Andreas Schou

Shared publicly  - 
 
There are, and always have been, a subset of voters who want genuinely awful things.

During the Bush administration, Guantanamo consistently polled as being more popular than almost all government policies except Medicare. Torture was, and is, consistently more popular than the ACA. Go back to the 1970s, and you'll find substantial numbers of Americans in favor of massacring antiwar protesters; ten years earlier, and you'll find large numbers of people supporting the deaths of outside agitators in the South; ten years before that, and you'll find key reforms which are conditioned on the prevention of anti-lynching legislation.

In order to maintain a democracy, there has to be an official myth that there was a George Wallace, but no George Wallace voters; that there was a Confederacy, but no Confederates; that Bull Connor and Theodore Bilbo were somehow elected without any particular person electing them. But they were elected, and they were elected because many of the worst things that this country does are not directed, top-down, by our corrupt elites: they were demanded, bottom-up, by the worst sort of populist voter.

This is what we're seeing in the bad-faith attempts to claim that Trump is a monster, but that none of that monstrousness is in his supporters. This is nonsense. Trump is not somehow introducing racism and misogyny and corruption to the American public.

It was there all along. He simply gave the worst people in our country a voice. 
104
18
Steve Lolyouwish's profile photoSteve S's profile photodave arnold's profile photoJosh Smith's profile photo
35 comments
 
This is interesting and intellectual.Debating is like mental shadow boxing.It sharpen the mind.Great comments everyone.👏
Add a comment...
Andreas's Collections
Story
Introduction
Dilettante. Incapable of boredom. Diverse interests. If you'd like a distilled stream of my best posts, try here: http://goo.gl/CEAuD.
Education
  • Awesome Skeleton Hell College
    Extreme Death, 2012
  • University of Idaho
  • Idaho State University
  • Pocatello High School
  • Irving Jr. High School
  • Indian Hills Elementary
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Looking for
Friends, Networking
Relationship
Married
Other names
Andy Schou, Andreas Christian Schou
Work
Employment
  • Snake Parliament
    Dog Prime Minister, present
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Mountain View, California
Previously
Boise, Idaho - Moscow, Idaho - Pocatello, Idaho
Links
Other profiles