>Does anyone actually believe that hard work and talent are either zero or negatively correlated to success?
On average or for a particular person? Maybe on average there’s an effect (r=.4), so there will be many people for whom that correlation is in their individual case actually negative. Some struggle with this notion, and assume success must signal talent or hard work in individual cases. How one defines success matters a lot too. If one is comparing zuck to some random CEO, say collison, can you say zuck is more hardworking or talented? He is more successful on paper, but I doubt he is significantly more hardworking or talented.
Is that really true? I observe that certain drugs impact all personalities in similar ways, like cocaine making people paranoid. If you have homeless near you like most California, you spot opioid or meth drug behaviors instantly because they’re quite distinct. Alcohol does impair judgement, which predictably means less self monitoring and that may explain what you’ve noticed, that jerks get jerkier while nice guys may just get nicer on alcohol.
They key word was "radically".
Of course, every drug has a typical and general impact on how people behave and you can even notice it in physical movement (everybody expects any drunk person to have pretty bad motor control).
But this is just making my point even more, you need to observe the differences between individual behaviors under the influence, not just the difference between their behavior sober and under influence.
A drug will amplify certain key aspects of cognition/movement in the same way for everyone, someone who displays extreme specific behavior is just more noticeable because the amplification makes it very obvious, but it was always there in the first place.
I have never heard about cocaine making people paranoid but it is just something that every drug user displays at some point (because of the fear of being found out, judged and maybe having trouble with the police).
Even though I am an extremely chill person, I have found myself to be a bit paranoid under the influence of cannabis at times.
And I have a question for you: is it the drug that makes people paranoid or is it that people who are inclined to paranoid behavior are more likely to use drugs, which amplify the behavior.
People regularly using drugs have issues that push them to this abuse, it's not really the drug that are the problem, the root of the issue is really in the people and their personnality/character.
If I say, “I like to lead by example”, that can mean leadership in the moral sense of progressive politics. Americans view America that way, as the leader of liberalism and social justice. Even Americans who don’t see America or American history that way, tend to see themselves (ironically?) that way. But that’s a different meaning of leader. We lead by things like protests, humanitarian aid and having enlightened celebrities.
It sounded like you were going to disagree, but then I think you arrived at the same place more or less. Congress, on net, isn’t doing what it needs to be doing. Is that not a critical problem? If the executive who takes up that slack is Trump, suddenly people notice what a problem it is. But, it is not about Trump specifically, but rather an ongoing and systemic issue with our two party system, and it will predictably escalate due to partisans in Washington and their unwavering supporters.
I was emphatically disagreeing with their first sentence. The idea that Congress shouldn't be delegating its power to regulatory agencies was a fringe one until very recently, with the obviously-corrupt SCOTUS ruling ending Chevron deference.
Delegating power to regulatory agencies also has nearly nothing to do with Congress's recent gridlock and ineffectiveness, or the spate of executive orders that has prompted.
> The idea that Congress shouldn't be delegating its power to regulatory agencies was a fringe one until very recently
Between about 1985 (Chevron) and 2010 (the populist movements in both parties), this idea was at its nadir of popularity. For the entire rest of US history from 1776-1980 and 2010-2025, a distrust of a large executive branch was very popular, and pretty much bipartisan most of the time. Just because you do not remember a time when this idea was popular, it does not mean that it was a fringe one only until very recently.
Congress is designed to be gridlocked. That's its natural state. We are now learning why it's a good idea to have a relatively ineffective government.
No in fact I'd say we are learning why its bad to have ineffective goverment. It lets people believe any blowhard thats claiming to be able to get things done. And its easy to do stuff when you don't care about destroying things or making things worse or following the law
I think my mileage varies a bit. I was an Obama/Clinton supporter, and I have always felt strongly that the legislative branch was… less than efficient. Delegating away the hard non-glamorous stuff is incentivized and nothing changes because the DC system as a whole just works that way. Both parties want less accountability and more power, but citizens need the opposite. There has to be some reasonable amount of legislation coming from the legislature or what are they there for other than grandstanding, fundraising and performative outrage?
Could you be overestimating how easy it is to take possession of their money given global free trade? In 10 years, what are the odds you and others will have finally, after all these years, actually managed to have “taxed the rich” as has been proposed as the solution to current debt levels for many years now? If we cannot be certain of those tax revenues from finally “taxing the rich”, then they cannot solve the debt problem and we therefore need to look for other solutions. Not that the wreckless and irresponsible cuts from DOGE are the solution. They are likely to increase the size and scope of the government in the long run, after impairing it’s efficiency and operational capacity in the short. Hopefully the dems don’t blow the opportunity this time.
Yudkowsky and Moldbug, Freud, Adam Smith, Marx. Developing grand overarching theories, and marketing them to society at large is not an entirely new phenomenon. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by “systems-oriented”?
China could say less restricted American internet is racist, because we tolerate content they do not. Like 4chan tolerates what Reddit does not. Would it be a fallacy to say people who chose to escape Chinese censorship online are racists? Maybe it’s a matter of degree or something?
That is what has saved Reddit. You cannot find society fascism coordination there because the mods are strong. If 4chan followed that model bronies might still be a thing.
On average or for a particular person? Maybe on average there’s an effect (r=.4), so there will be many people for whom that correlation is in their individual case actually negative. Some struggle with this notion, and assume success must signal talent or hard work in individual cases. How one defines success matters a lot too. If one is comparing zuck to some random CEO, say collison, can you say zuck is more hardworking or talented? He is more successful on paper, but I doubt he is significantly more hardworking or talented.