For the high decouplers, the dawkins post was an opportunity to take
a charitable interperation of “eugenics works” in order to defend the
honour of richard dawkins.
For the low decouplers, the post was an opportunity to point out how
eugenics is actually quite shithouse at “improving” a population, and is
inseperable from authoritarian values, and that it’s irresponsible to
casually bring up eugenics programs up as if morality is the only
problem with it.
Clearly, the first people are the more rational ones here.
so by trying to understand things completely removed from the context
they were said in, people come away with a flawed partial understanding
colored by their own preconceptions? what an interesting concept…
[Guess you have low IQ.](https://twitter.com/EnglesFrederica/status/1229837566053994496)
(Joking obviously, I agree that decoupling some ideas from their context is bad. And coupling the idea of being able to decouple (I skill I have, I used to post in ssc ;) to IQ is just silly)
It is. Derailing a conversation like that because "lol who will get put into gas chambers" is absurd given historical Eugenics programs, most if then didn't force people to breed or mass murder the "unfit".
Where? Puerto Rico? Asking for links and examples. Because again most Eugenics programs weren't ethnically targeted . The US supreme Court in 1943 ruled against a Eugenic law because it *could* be used in ethnically discriminatory way (white collar crimes didn't get sterilization, blue collar crimes did, SCOTUS recognized how that could have prejudicial effects)
Given I said "most Eugenics programs" in the early paragraphs, uh no. You haven't proven that. So yes this s
Is good faith argument. You make a claim fucking prove it, don't hide behind "lel google it"
>\> So? I don't care, all eugenics programs were (and are) still awful and racist and they can't be divorced from their awful and racist context.
Care to explain the racism in Chinese eugenics programs?
>\> What claim was made? Use quotes
i posted originally
>\>>It is. Derailing a conversation like that because "lol who will get put into gas chambers" is absurd given historical Eugenics programs, most if then didn't force people to breed or mass murder the "unfit".
Worth noting that Colin Wright was a grad student of Jonathan Pruitt,
the Canadian professor who was recently caught fabricating data on a
vast number of papers going back to his dissertation.
High decouplers are incapable of considering ideas as part of a
larger context, even when this would help them make sense of things.
This, of course, actually means they’re smarter, because,
origin is: i'm too socially inept to understand context therefore I will make up a rationalist superpower named "high decoupling" and attribute it to that.
I don't think they're unable to understand context, just unwilling. After all, when they think the context favors their point of view, they seem more than willing to include it in the conversation.
i'm pretty sure it was coined by alexander in an ssc post a year or two back. its part of his series of dichotomies for people, where he miraculously lands on the "good, intelligent" side every time and all those icky red and blue tribe people land on the other side.
E: see below, propagated by sarah constantin; she attributes the idea of decoupling to keith stanovich who i'm not familiar with, and i don't know which of them started dividing the population into high/low decouplers.
ah, yeah, hunting it down it appears to have been coined by sarah constantin (original sneer post [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/8fp3jk/high_decouplers_and_low_decouplers/)). i was probably getting it confused with meta and object level thinkers, which is the exact same dichotomy just with different words.
I thought about this thread when Bernie Sanders made his comments
about Cuba.
This is what I mean when I say that we are all couplers and
decouplers, and we use those tools as we need to. People who like
Sanders are decoupling in this situation: he’s just talking about Cuba’s
healthcare and education system, that doesn’t mean he’s praising Castro
or his authoritarianism as a whole. But people who dislike Sanders are
coupling: how dare Sanders brings up Cuba without viciously condemning
every aspect of it? Doesn’t he know how offensive he is being to
millions of Cuban-Americans? You can’t separate policies from the
whole!
What if you just changed the wording? Hi/lo makes it seem like one is
worse than the other. You have high-decouplers and high-couplers. One
group is great at isolating dots and the other skilled at stringing them
together.
I'll let you in on a secret. Those terms aren't used to actually provide any clarity or insight, but rather to flaunt intellectual prowess and superiority.
I think we're all a mix of decouplers and couplers. There are some guys like Robin Hanson or Jordan Peterson who are slanted to either side, but in general, I think that people will use whatever tools they want to defend their argument.
I have determined that there are only two kinds of people in the world and I, purely coincidentally, belong to the better one.
For the high decouplers, the dawkins post was an opportunity to take a charitable interperation of “eugenics works” in order to defend the honour of richard dawkins.
For the low decouplers, the post was an opportunity to point out how eugenics is actually quite shithouse at “improving” a population, and is inseperable from authoritarian values, and that it’s irresponsible to casually bring up eugenics programs up as if morality is the only problem with it.
Clearly, the first people are the more rational ones here.
so by trying to understand things completely removed from the context they were said in, people come away with a flawed partial understanding colored by their own preconceptions? what an interesting concept…
[deleted]
Maybe, just maybe, some ideas shouldn’t be decoupled from their contexts.
Worth noting that Colin Wright was a grad student of Jonathan Pruitt, the Canadian professor who was recently caught fabricating data on a vast number of papers going back to his dissertation.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00287-y
High decouplers are incapable of considering ideas as part of a larger context, even when this would help them make sense of things. This, of course, actually means they’re smarter, because,
Lol people are still using the decouplers thing
Geeze, guys, that was so 2018
What’s the origin of this whole decoupling idea? Is there an academic paper or what? All I can find is links to rationalist posts.
Something something wait til you meet your first hectocoupler
Looks like the tweet is gone, what was it?
What the fuck did you just say about me?
I thought about this thread when Bernie Sanders made his comments about Cuba.
This is what I mean when I say that we are all couplers and decouplers, and we use those tools as we need to. People who like Sanders are decoupling in this situation: he’s just talking about Cuba’s healthcare and education system, that doesn’t mean he’s praising Castro or his authoritarianism as a whole. But people who dislike Sanders are coupling: how dare Sanders brings up Cuba without viciously condemning every aspect of it? Doesn’t he know how offensive he is being to millions of Cuban-Americans? You can’t separate policies from the whole!
What if you just changed the wording? Hi/lo makes it seem like one is worse than the other. You have high-decouplers and high-couplers. One group is great at isolating dots and the other skilled at stringing them together.