Discover more from sebjenseb
The Agency Fallacy
minor article, so not promoting on twatter
Definition: the agency fallacy is defined as reasoning error where a person assumes that a problem is solvable when it is not, or is not in the way that they think it is.
This fallacy is fairly widespread; I believe this is because reasoning errors that falsely assume a problem is unsolvable are more damaging than those that incorrectly conclude a problem isn’t. The logical mistake itself can be identified as a different fallacy, but what ultimately motivates these missteps is a misplaced desire to change the world.
Many people reason with the mentality of “how can this problem be fixed”, when really they should be thinking about the cause of the problem, and then determine whether it is solvable.
Attempts to solve achievement test scores between Blacks and Whites that do not involve any attempts to solve the intelligence difference, or the genetic difference that causes the difference in intelligence.
: depending on the wording of the question and the sample, 17-60.2% of experts in psychology or intelligence argue in favor of wholly environmental sources of Black-White differences in intelligence.
Thinking that “toxicity” (flaming, not trying, etc.) in League of Legends is solvable, rather than a fact of life that exists in lots of domains.
  : people complaining about the developer’s approach to dealing with toxic players, when Riot has every incentive to try to disincentivize “toxicity”. I already consider this a loaded word, as it ascribes moral indignation to behaviours that can be warranted given the situation. For example, if two players refuse to surrender a clearly lost game, and one player starts throwing the game in response, I would argue the two players refusing to surrender are the problem, not the thrower.
Thinking that the current right-wing’s passivity in politics is solvable, rather a consequence of predictable and unchangeable factors.
Combating the narrative, an otherwise respectable youtuber argues that dissident right wingers need to be less passive, which entails protesting more and trying to actively prevent the degeneration of our country. He thinks that people who want to get behind one big political figure and try to change they country with their help are deluded. This is a bad proposal because of several reasons:
This would potentially be a good message to spread to a large, committed audience - like that of Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, Rand Paul, or Bronze Age Pervert. CtN does not have this audience, so spreading this message is pointless.
Part of this is clear differences in demographics: left wingers tend to be younger, childless, and more politically fanatical, so of course they have more available biomass to throw around. see Richard Hanania’s post on why “things are so liberal”.
This is a bad frame to engage in politics with - as the Iron Law of Oligarchy proves that society is ruled by an elite portion of it. Solving political problems starts from the top down, not the bottom up.
This pattern also generalizes to other western countries, indicating it is not unique to the USA, making change a more implausible possibility.
Left wingers more likely to protest in Northwestern and Southern Europe:
I was chatting with a person who knew what I did online, and he talked about the possibility of promoting race realism to a moderate audience. I told him that we have some sway within dissident right communities and even the rationalist community, but gaining ground outside that is difficult. This is a product of social conditioning, which is almost impossible to undue except in the most open minded and naturally racist people. Rather, a more actionable approach would be to try to privately promote HBD to notable figures or elites, and then hope that their influence can accelerate the inevitable rise of the truth to power.