(Part 3) Top products from r/Destiny

I think that if the person reports it was her duty so save other soldiers, it's not really a classical case of altruism. So in that case I agree. But that's unique to the reported reason of someone handling out of "duty" rather than "empathy".

On an act being egoistic as soon as some pleasure is derived, allow me to quote these nicely written paragraphs from this book.

> The egoist might respond: if you are doing what you really want, aren’t
you thereby self-interested? It is important to see that the answer may well
be no. For all we know, some of us deeply want to help other people. When
we manage to offer such help, we are doing what we really want to do. Yet
what we really want to do is to benefit someone else, not ourselves.
Now, if people get what they really want, they may be better off as a
result. (But they might not: think of the anorexic or the drug addict. Or
think of the cases of disappointment discussed in chapter 4.) Yet the fact
that a person gains from her action does not prove that her motives were
egoistic [1]. The person who really wants to help the homeless, and volunteers
at a soup kitchen or shelter, may certainly derive pleasure from her efforts.
But this doesn’t show that pleasure was her aim. Her aim may have been to
help those in need. And because her aim was achieved, she thereby
received pleasure.

> As a general matter, when you discover that your deepest desires have
been satisfied, you often feel quite pleased. But that does not mean that your ultimate aim is to get such pleasure. That’s what needs to be shown; we can’t just assume it in trying to figure out whether our motives are
always self-interested.

I also think describing altruistic behavior as epigenetically, deterministically or evolutionarily is as useful as describing love as an influx of dopamine and oxytocine. It's scientifically nice but also kind of restricting in understanding humans.

[1] If I reward you with a cookie for taking the shortest path to work, and you enjoy that reward, that does not prove you took the shortest path to work because of my reward--you would have taken it anyway and under what I understand to be your conception of human behavior there is no accounting for this possibility.

Hi, Econ undergrad here!

Econ is a little special when it comes to education because the vast majority of books in bookstores and youtube videos are not based on mainstream orthodox economics as you would learn in a university. Most of it is bunk and if you attempt to learn economic theory from youtube you'll probably end up misinforming yourself(It's happened to me firsthand). I would highly recommend you pirate 1 college micro and 1 macro textbooks and go through the math problems chapter by chapter. If you want a quicker intro to econ I highly recommend reading Naked economics since it summarizes intro micro and macro very well.


I wrote up a small explanation on how to debate economics a few days ago. Here's a edited version of why theory is so important.

• First: If you don't have a foundation in theory you won't understand why a policy is favored even if you understand what economists support. What makes the current generation of new Keynesian macro models so great is that by manipulating the microfoundation a economist can adapt the model for different situations and assumptions to get varying accurate solutions.
  
• Second: Models will oftentimes give welfare maximizing answers. Therefore economists who've gone through the math beforehand can just argue about tradeoffs of policies and picking the right model, and not argue about the equations themselves.
  
• Third: The effects of policies vary heavily the longer they're implemented. Using short term models to describe changes decades in the future will oftentimes give wrong results. Some mechanics and theories from econ 101 are used even in advanced macro but you gotta have the intuition to know what is relevant and what is deceptive in order to pick optimal policies.
  
• fourth(not included in previous post): While theory may tell you roughly the effects of policies and their tradeoffs for different groups at the end of the day you still need to make choices between those tradeoffs. A good example is trade policy as theory will tell you in most circumstances that its unambiguously better to lower tariffs and redistribute the efficiency gains to the losers but in practice those who immediately lose will fight with every part of their being to stop greater free trade even if in the long run they'd be better off. That kind of struggle requires political choices in which it may be better to favor the protectionists even if the economics says its not the optimal answer.
  
  
  Edit:
  
  To answer your question of how to form good economic opinions. If you learn micro and macro theory for the short and long term you can use it to form opinions on a wide variety of policies. It's extremely important that you study the long term growth models immediately after you learn the short term growth models as their policy recommendations oftentimes directly contradict.
  
  Edit 2: Changed "current generation of macro models" to "current generation of new keynesian macro models"

Oh nice, sounds like the zero marginal cost society. https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Marginal-Cost-Society-Collaborative/dp/1137280115

You might be interested in it, talks about similar things.

I found it to be a good companion to Bregman's Utopia for Realists.
https://www.amazon.com/Utopia-Realists-Build-Ideal-World/dp/0316471895

Either way, thanks for naming the book. Gonna check that one out.

>it's retarded to the point of being a meme.

How on earth is it retarded? It's fine if your argument is it's nothing new, as your second statement suggests, but pragmatism isn't retarded to the point of being a meme.

Assuming your position is the latter, I'd certainly argue a wholesale rejection of partisan politics is pretty damn radical. The Radical Center: The Future of American Politics is a thought provoking and influential read on the topic:

>Record numbers of Americans describe themselves as “independents” and reject the conventional agendas of Left and Right. In this widely acclaimed book, Ted Halstead and Michael Lind explain why today’s ideologies and institutions are so ill-suited to the Information Age, and offer a groundbreaking blueprint for updating all sectors of America society. Taking on partisans and experts on both sides of the political divide, they propose far-reaching reforms for the way we provide health and retirement security, collect taxes, organize elections, enforce civil rights, and educate our children.

>Twice before the United States has dramatically reconfigured itself, shifting from an agrarian to an industrial society after the Civil War and successfully adapting to the massive technological and demographic changes of the early twentieth century during the New Deal era. Uniting a sweeping historical vision with bold policy proposals, The Radical Center shows us how to reinvent our nation once again so that all Americans can reap the benefits of the Information Age.

One of the authors, Ted Halstead has done a ton of good work toward bridging political divides, especially on climate change.

Do you think the way american politics currently functions is "just pragmatic"? Do you not agree that changing the system to a degree that enables the suppression or elimination of partisan bullshit would be pretty damn radical? For example, banning political parties and requiring everyone to run as independents with their own ideas rather than party talking points is radical IMO.

I highly recommend you read "Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy" and seek a good CBT therapist. You're not alone, and stay strong.

https://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Good-New-Mood-Therapy/dp/0380810336

In regards to the Russel bit, I think getting into any of his technical works is a mistake for a noob, but this is necessary foundational reading for an amateur who isn't going to college for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosophy

In my view as an autodidact to philosophy, this was an excellent introduction. I think people really should not be reading selected specific academic works like Rem has suggested without guidance from a professor/teacher. One I've seen suggested before for a typical starting out laymen is:

https://www.amazon.com/Tetralogue-Im-Right-Youre-Wrong/dp/0198728883

My Grandma enjoyed it, she's the most educated person in the family with a Master's in English but never engaged in Philosophy before. If she can read into it amateurly and understand it at 82, no one else has got an excuse.

If people really want to dive deeper, they really should go to college, or just buy a bunch of used books and plow through them, read the IEP and SEP articles on the subjects, compare their understanding with peer-reviewed understandings, etc...

There's lots of them, so I think one should start in the area they're most interested in and then branch from there.

Here' a general survey of the areas of philosophy.

The areas usually have their own articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy with extensive bibliographies (e.g. Modal Logic). Same goes for particular problems from these areas, like Truth, and some of the philosophers themselves (e.g. Bertrand Russell). There's also the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

For less technical and more structured introductions, there are plenty of textbooks, like Logic, This is Philosophy of Mind or The Fundamentals of Ethics. Books from the Very Short Introductions series are sometimes decent (e.g. Metaphysics), and they really are short.

The textbooks usually have further reading recommendations, some of which are compiled readers like The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness or The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Contemporary Moral Problems. I think these are good starting points as well.

Most of the books are going to be available on libgen of course.

And then there's of course podcasts. Some of the good ones I like:

• Philosophy Bites – very concise episodes with experts speaking on singular subjects
  
• Elucidations – basically the above, but with longer episodes
  
• Very Bad Wizards – a philosopher an a psychologist meme a lot and then discuss some ethics
  
• The Panpsycast – meant as beginner introductions to various subjects; kinda hit-and-miss for me I guess, but the eps where they invite experts to speak are good
  
• History of Philosophy without any gaps – they mean the title
  
  Lastly, Gregory B. Sadler is a big guy.

> Secondly, I'm reading Yuval Harari's Homo Deus right now, in which he makes the claim that Marx would probably want people today to study how the modern economy works with the advent of computers, genetics research, etc., rather than reading a book that was written when steam was the coolest technology on the planet

That doesn't give you an excuse to not read Marx though, just an encouragement to read some recent stuff after having read and understood Marx. What you're implying is equivalent to "I shouldn't read Aristotle, Kant, and J.S. Mill on moral philosophy because we have moral questions now that didn't exist back in their times, like those on ethics of human cloning".

EDIT:

If you really want something recent to read then I guess you could read Shaikh, at least he will be better than fucking Sowell

https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Competition-Conflict-Anwar-Shaikh/dp/0199390630 (libgen.io btw)

Shorter lecture series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmBHCiDd8ew&list=PLTMFx0t8kDzc72vtNWeTP05x6WYiDgEx7

Book lecture series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShIg-3NRQj4&list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go

To be fair he's quoting feynman, aka our guy. The man was a rationalist and wasn't necessarily born a genius, just very curious and was stellar at using simple examples to convey complex ideas. There's a fun, not so serious book about him with a bunch of quotes like this, it's a good read https://www.amazon.com/Surely-Feynman-Adventures-Curious-Character/dp/0393316041

Accelerationism is pretty stupid, but the Accelerationism Manifesto is a good start for it. Nick Land is the modern, popular, theorists associated with it.

For Zizek, I'd start with the book Violence (pdf version of the book is here). It'll introduce you to his criticism of liberal capitalism and it's relationship with violence. It's also a great introduction to his theories on ideology. Some of the book (when he starts talking about Hegel, for example) aren't necessary and you can skip them.

Zizek writes in an easy to read, borderline rant-like, style that's easy to read, but also allows him to introduce random thoughts (he has a section on a "self love/masterbation" event. There's only a loose theme throughout the book so skipping some sections isn't a big deal.

@Destiny @exskillsme

The definition of good economic governance/lobbying is that which protects and incentivises competition.

The definition of bad economic governance/lobbying is that which produces financial security, allowing any individual, group or company to exist outside meritocratic influence.

Good governance thereby mitigates corruption.

Bad governance maximises it.

Further reading (if either of you give a fuck): The Constitution of Liberty written by nobel prize winning economist Friedrich Hayek.

If you're an average guy looking to invest, please don't emulate people like this. They're playing a game with money they can probably afford to lose, and like to talk like smart finance people to show off their status. You will lose money trying to chase the market and it will not be fun.

If you want to learn how not to invest, I recommend reading a book like this which presents an accessible introduction to the academic research into why non-experts should not play stock market games. That book costs $12 and may save you thousands in needless fees wasted on active management trying to chase the market.

>Don't think it was a malicious one, though, right?

I was trying imply to imply gross incompetence rather then maliciousness

>It was happening before this as well; the third Five Year Plan (38-41) explicitly had this as part of it's plan.

Pretty sure They were building entirely new industry, not moving existing machinery east that wouldn't make much sense unless you knew you were going to fail spectacularly in holding off invaders

>I mean, was just a snarky comment by me-- USA entered into the war later than the USSR, that's a fact, yes.

Ok sure maybe FDR should of just magiced the congress and general population into being pro war.

>The USA was of course helping nations with trade, like the USSR was doing with the Soviet Republics in it's borders.

Are You talking about Mongolia and Tannu Tuva? They were both satellite States and there contribution to ww2 was uh minor to say the least so I'm not sure if there really that comparable...

>Do you have any suggestions for the books on soviet policy during WWII? :)

I've only read military history's (stuff covering the battles) general historys covering the entire lifespan of the ussr. And a book about oil extraction in the USSR and the massive role played in the soviet economy.

https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-War-Soviet-Russia-Second/dp/0375724710

I've heard good things about this one online give it a try if you want

https://www.amazon.com/Clean-Your-Room-Easy-Steps/dp/0375844104

Reading level: 4-8 years

It's a direct quote from The End of Faith on page 41.

>There may even be some credible evidence for reincarnation.

He cites as a reference for this "evidence": Stevenson, Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, Unlearned Language New Studies in Xenoglossy, and Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect.

> by reality i mean everyone who's not on reddit with an economics major that's about to get switched to communications, trying to trigger people who read books

ftfy

If you swapped all the social, economic, political, war, etc, etc things of the Middle East and the USA, I'd say there's a very good chance that you could replace Islam with Christianity in all these debates. The point Destiny is making is that Islam is not the underlying cause and it's incredibly disingenuous to ignore all the context.

I'm Muslim and was born and raised in Canada. Compare me with a kid in Afghanistan. My biggest issue is that my laptop runs out of battery in 4 hours and I need to charge it in between classes. The kid Afghanistan... well you can imagine the differences. Now when I go to the mosque, the Imam is telling me that having an ego is bad and gives proofs from Quran and Hadith to back this up and then says that I should be more humble. An Imam from Afghanistan could use the exact same proofs from Quran and Hadith to say that people who have ego and bad but then say that Westerners have this ego thus they are bad.

I'm in STEM so probably not as well equipped to talk about this as you are but I did take an intro to religion course. The text we used is here. He talks about two things that I think hit the nail on the head:

1. Religion is something people do. Islam is not a thing, Christianity is not a thing. How I practice my religion has very little to do with what the book says but rather how I interpret and take meaning in what the book says.
   
   
2. Cafeteria religion. Everyone picks and chooses things. I'm sure you've heard of the "Islam forbids killing the innocent". Well what's innocent? My definition of innocent probably resonates with what yours is. The kid from Afghanistan probably doesn't.
   
   Next point is these stats about Muslims in the west. The problem is that there's hardly any context in these stats. I remember Destiny saying his mom thinks women shouldn't work jobs and should stay in the house and have kids and cook, etc. In the same way, my mom is pretty religious and I'm certain she thinks being homosexual is a sin but our neighbour is gay and they get along just fine. So statistically she's probably included in the "x% of Muslims in the west are homophobic" but how true really is that?
   
   A big problem is that radicalised sects within Islam are becoming more prevalent. I think it'd be stupid for anyone to think this isn't a problem. But the issue is that by lumping this category with Islam, you're giving it more power. I think Obama understood this very well. There's no problem with using "Islamic terrorism" or "radical Islam" is that you're attaching this group with 1.6 billion people.
   
   And on your last point, I don't think that's fair at all... Media supported the free speech of Charlie Hebdo but that doesn't mean you have to publish his work. I support the biggest anti-Islamic racist in their free speech but I'm not going to support the ideas. For example, take (Piss Christ)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ]. "Serrano received death threats and hate mail, and he lost grants due to the controversy."

1% in gun ownership correlates with 0.9% rise in firearm homicide rate

Australia's buyback program was incredible successful in saving lives.

Buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people correlated with a 74 percent drop in gun suicides.

Robbery and assault is similar in other countries, but American violence is the highest.


[America doesn't really have a significantly higher rate of crime compared to similar countries. But that crime is much likelier to be lethal: American criminals just kill more people than do their counterparts in other developed countries. And guns appear to be a big part of what makes this difference. They go on later in the book with recommendations. A response to lethal violence in the U.S. should include widening the punishment gap between non-violent burglary and armed robbery. It should also include a wide variety of strategies to make crime safer in the U.S., says Zimring.These would include serious efforts to reduce hand gun ownership and use, environmental deterrents to robbers and violent assaults--such as cashless buses and bullet-proof vests--and training potential crime victims to minimize the chances that violent crime will end in death--such as not resisting a robber. ]
(https://www.amazon.com/Crime-Is-Not-Problem-Violence/dp/0195131053)