That helps to explain why we get folks who act out their vile sexual fantasies, and also folks who fund and coordinate people who spread lies about what we "ACTUALLY" want and why, as well as on what's dangerous and what's not. Remember Epstein? He was both! A pedo AND a pop evopsych nutter!

There's a lot of biological precedent for this in intra-species competition over what transmissible and spreadable characteristics are secured in populations (not just genes, but also other characteristics of biological and surrounding abiotic systems, such as cellular-metabolic characteristics).

Since they're so connected to things that people want, sex, sexuality and reproduction are all extremely politically-sensitive and targets of taboos enforced against the masses. The selective enforcement is the point: we're supposed to do what THEY want, whether that means living, dying, spawning...

It's elitist gatekeeping as usual, mostly to give themselves status symbols to hold against us. Western societies ARE generally polygamous (especially polygynous), but mostly for elites. Richer folks have multiple spouses, and the most powerful fill up gamete banks and have ritualistic orgies.

NEVER fall for the "they did it to themselves" line. Should we not at least try to help those damned through no fault of our own, let alone those we've in some way hurt? Elites and those who wanna be in their shoes don't live by such a rule, but they brag about having the tech to help them.

Regardless of the sincerity, insecurities and competence of Mamdani's supporters among the masses, those smug talkers never comment on the influence of elites on all of those, the same elites who at least let those talkers have platforms to give millions of people "it's okay to be bigoted" signals.

If only we could innovate our way towards that. But legions of smirking sadists don't want that: from lawyers and bureaucrats hypocritically putting their "ethics" hats on, to supply network parasites and saboteurs ruining production chains for fun and profit (see: the rot economy).

By the science pouring out of the very institutions they still however begrudgingly rely on, we can be mind-controled through things like deep brain stimulation and hormone injections, and we don't need sexuality for limitless pleasure. Most of us could just live, sit and die happy.

They love pointing at supposed cultural universals and "underlying principles" which fit their theories, all so they can argue about what we "ACTUALLY" want and justify unlimited terror towards even slight non-conformists on the basis of securing those wants. But they were mostly elitists' decrees.

"Realist" elitists of the "scientific" intellectual tradition that produced Hobbes, neo-Malthusians, Galton, Dawkins and the basis of both pop evopsych and the "race realist" movement have been appealing to that very "nature" and developments of it to get us to accept "WEIRD"-flavor elitism.

Starting to think "WEIRD" should evoke the idea of walking experiments subject to the greatest nudging from most powerful and ambitious elites. That's what "WEIRD" "human nature" really is in most cases. We could've been like popular depictions of gods if elites actually wanted the best for us.

"3D" figures usually suck if they're scatter graphs or bar charts, but they can help with depictions of most of the physical objects we find interesting.

What is the point of such a rule? The issue is one of bad data visualization, not 3D being inherently bad. Would it not help if it stimulates visuo-spatial intuition in a non-deceptive way? The illusion of depth can sometimes help!

But that's all just "Nature" in action, right? The strong eating the weak. The ones who conform to supposed "evolutionary principles" and reinforce what worked purging the non-conformists in the great struggle for life.

How much of fashionable "realist" psychology is elitists' self-congratulation?

It's not that elites are micromanaging everyone and everything. It's also about what they choose to leave alone. That's what "our nature" (the "human nature" of the masses) really is. PR goons and "public health" institutions have been trying to hack that for over a century, bragging about it.

It's the old "they did it to themselves" trick they pull with anything the ideologists call "natural". Some scientists know about some of what causes addictions, and they know roughly which hormones do what and how to stimulate them without e.g. having sex. Yet most of us are stuck with "nature".

They have it easy: most non-conformists ARE mentally-ill, with that preceding and/or following their non-conformism. Treatments for those are artificially limited through white collar malice. And anything to do with sex and "gender" is incredibly political and controlled at a distance by elites.

Turns out at least some of us plausibly rationally want to change our biological sex characteristics, and we can do so with ever-better technology. That undermines their ideology. So, like with any non-conformity. they have to "correct" reality and fulfil their own prophecies.

They put an enormous ideological stake on this, so they have to argue that things like that are immutable and that nobody who's sane would ever bother. That obviously includes sex and the sexes, one of THE main obsessions of evopsych types (owing to it being required for reproduction until now).

He's on the "rational centrist" and anti-"woke" branches of the now-ascendant conservative side: the "realists" who'll tell us that we're all just slaves to genes and biological principles, and that if their approved Science can't foster resistance against it, nothing ever will.

Dawkins makes crazy moves to reify genes and pretend he's not, all as part of his political role. "New Atheism" is nerd bait for anyone who isn't openly religious, with that and the nearby "skeptic" and TESCREAL communities having fractured harshly into recycled "culture war" fronts.

In that "not too extended" paper, he made the dumb move of advancing a redefinition of NC based on vibes, which didn't fit Odling-Smee's original and more general definition. Dawkins thought that NC had to be about adaptations and Darwinian evolution, when it's actually more general.

People can delude themselves incredibly, but most of us have been feeling the squeeze since 2008! We know when we're being screwed, because it usually hurts like hell, and only extreme delusions and distractions obscure that from us. I think the urge to hurt some fashionable targets beats those.

Trump could foul up the Constitution and say loco things about bleach, and they'd performatively defend him. But if he didn't maximally "own the libs", they'd want to shoot him! To them, he and his helpfulness to the nation aren't as important as the feeling that "degenerates" are getting tortured.

I bet most of the cultists are insincere. They probably hate Trump as much as the antisemites who took his side despite his support for Israel. They know he's a loud old neocon! They're actually there to mingle with even more ambitious assholes and quickly make their easier enemies suffer.

How long before these trolls say with a straight face that so many religious folks are from incredibly inbred families as reflected by all the talk about "brothers and sisters"?

I worry that researchers will forget about or take for granted important work that's gotta be done to establish sensible parameter distributions for multiverse analysis.

Where that work is absent, would it be trolling to suggest something like multi-multiverse analysis for speculative purposes?

You're cutting out the pleasure and nutrition aspects. It's shameful that you don't even mention IV lines and deep brain stimulation. For a bit of spice, you can make the needles rusty and add a shock collar.

The Rethuglicans are partially reliant on Thiel, who was inspired by Yarvin, who was spamming "race realist" garbage. As for the UK, one "race realist" fellow traveler (Dutton) went to the UK's Patriotic Alternative to farm applause. And their Tory PM Boris Johnson had ties to eugenicists.

Don't worry. I'm basically agreeing with and expanding on your brief comment on major political parties. I don't want people to see them (and the fringe parties) as simply isolated from the general trajectory of intellectual culture (including academic culture). Had to get their ammo from somewhere.