AngEme

I think one way to end her video is on this point made by Dr. Beals at the 46:06 mark, that smart or highly educated people often fall for naive realism even more strongly because they are better at constructing rational justifications for their subjective, biased perceptions. youtu.be/nldpkNllFDE?si…

They got the same DNA. Genes are the same. Same mother, same father, same older siblings, same younger siblings, same number of books in the house, same number of TVs in the house, same teachers, same everything. So they should be absolutely indistinguishable. They should be, you know, clones. Well, if you know a pair of identical twins, you know they’re not indistinguishable. They have separate personalities. I know this intimately, having two identical twin uncles, Barry and Mark, who are more similar than people picked off the street at random, but no one in the family had any doubt which was which. They each had their own personality, and that’s true of all individuals. Well, that leads to a real puzzle that I think psychologists have not really thought through enough, which is: how can they be different? It’s not their genes. It’s not their environment—at least not anything stable about the environment, like who your mother is or what neighborhood you live in. @thinkableevents

I really enjoyed the debate between @ComicDaveSmith and @coldxman . I consider myself more on Dave's side when it comes to Israel's conduct in Gaza and the history of the region. As an exercise I ran the transcript of the conversation through an LLM just to see how it would judge the debate. To a bit of my surprise, Coleman came out on top overall when measuring topic by topic. The LLM was instructed to provide a 50% to 100% assessment. 50% implies, dead even, 100% implies Coleman or Dave won indisputably. Results below. 1. Why Dave Loves Ron Paul (Focus: Ron Paul's Influence and Key Ideas) Dave's Arguments: Ron Paul awakened him to non-interventionist foreign policy, exposing U.S. actions as root causes of terrorism (e.g., blowback from bases in Saudi Arabia). He praised Paul's critique of the Federal Reserve as a hidden inflationary force and his advocacy for true free markets and peace. Coleman's Arguments: Agreed on terrorism not being about "hating freedom" but argued it's driven by radical Islamist ideology, not just U.S. policy (e.g., no South Korean terrorists despite U.S. troops). Challenged the military-economy link as outdated, noting low inflation during high military spending eras. Winner: Dave Smith (70%). Dave's personal narrative and emphasis on Paul's foundational ideas were more cohesive and passionate, though Coleman's critiques on ideology and economics were solid rebuttals, preventing a stronger win. 2. Relationship Between Military Spending and the Economy Dave's Arguments: Military spending drives debt and inflation (true inflation = money supply increase, not just CPI). It's a major debt contributor (~$20T since Soviet collapse), comparable to welfare; U.S. has militaristic big government vs. Europe's welfare focus, but both inflate. Coleman's Arguments: Military spending is minor (~3-4% GDP) compared to entitlements; U.S. inflation/debt matches low-military Europe. Past wars (WWII, Vietnam) caused inflation, but recent ones (Iraq/Afghanistan) didn't, suggesting the link is outdated. Winner: Coleman Hughes (65%). Coleman's data-driven comparisons (e.g., similar inflation to Europe, low GDP percentage) edged out Dave's broader claims, though Dave's REPL-like persistence on money supply made it close. 3. Roots of Jihadist Terror Dave's Arguments: Terrorism stems from U.S. foreign policy grievances (e.g., bases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq sanctions killing civilians), not just ideology. Blowback is predictable; radical Islam filters but doesn't cause it (e.g., Irish/Jewish terrorists without Islam). U.S. domination breeds resistance. Coleman's Arguments: Requires both grievances and jihadist ideology (e.g., no Rwandan terrorists despite U.S. non-intervention; Al-Qaeda's Saudi complaint needs Salafi lens). Can't let terrorists veto legitimate alliances (e.g., U.S. in Saudi with government permission). Winner: Coleman Hughes (75%). Coleman's emphasis on ideology as a necessary ingredient (with analogies like South Korea/Bosnia) was more structured and evidence-based, countering Dave's blowback focus effectively. 4. Whether Israel Got Us Into the War in Iraq Dave's Arguments: Neocons (part of Israel lobby) drove it (e.g., Clean Break memo, PNAC ties, Mearsheimer's book). They admitted loyalty to Israel; post-9/11 plans targeted Iraq/Iran for Israel's benefit (e.g., Wesley Clark's memo on 7 countries). Coleman's Arguments: Neocons focused on WMDs, not Israel (e.g., PNAC letters barely mention it). Lobby spending is tiny (~$17M Bush era vs. tobacco's $200M); Sharon warned against Iraq; Clean Break was for Israel, not U.S., and mismatched (e.g., no democracy push); Clark's memo was hearsay/ignored snowflake. Winner: Coleman Hughes (85%). Coleman's detailed debunking (e.g., spending data, full quotes, memo context) overwhelmed Dave's reliance on Mearsheimer/Clark, which felt less substantiated in rebuttals. 5. Whether Israel's Fundamental Goal Is Peace with Its Neighbors or Territorial Expansion Dave's Arguments: Netanyahu/Likud thwart Palestinian state for Greater Israel (e.g., religious claims, settlements). Gaza withdrawal was to freeze peace (Weissglas quote); occupation perpetuates conflict; Israel uses force for dominance, not peace. Coleman's Arguments: Israel seeks peace when possible (e.g., Sinai return, 2000 offer, Gaza/Lebanon withdrawals despite attacks). Society shifts left with partners (e.g., Barak/Olmert); expansion is minority view; unilateral pulls led to attacks, so needs real partner. Winner: Coleman Hughes (70%). Coleman's historical examples (e.g., peace treaties, democratic shifts) were stronger, though Dave's Netanyahu/religious faction points prevented a decisive win. 6. Creation of the State of Israel Dave's Arguments: Zionist project displaced Arabs (750k expelled); required force; ongoing occupation/apartheid; Palestinians resist domination, not just ideology. Coleman's Arguments: Refugee-driven (post-Holocaust/Western doors closed); 1948 war from Arab invasion/civil war; partition as best solution (e.g., India/Pakistan analogy); Arabs rejected peace (e.g., Khartoum no's). Winner: Coleman Hughes (80%). Coleman's context (refugee origins, Arab aggression) was more balanced and fact-rich, countering Dave's displacement focus effectively. 7. Ethics of the Occupation of the West Bank Dave's Arguments: Indefinite occupation is immoral/apartheid; no right to control stateless people; unilateral end possible (e.g., no partner needed); fuels terrorism; comparable to slavery (can't justify via security fears). Coleman's Arguments: Defensive (post-67 war); ethical if no partner (e.g., unilateral pulls = attacks); Palestinians may prefer status quo over civil war/Hamas rule (e.g., Puerto Rico analogy); partition needs mutual deterrence. Winner: Dead even (50%). Both made principled cases—Dave on human rights, Coleman on security realities—but neither fully resolved the other's core concerns. 8. Barriers to a Two-State Solution Dave's Arguments: Israel thwarts via settlements/poison pills (Netanyahu tape); Hamas support rises with occupation; unilateral withdrawal possible; U.S. enables status quo. Coleman's Arguments: Palestinian rejectionism/terror (e.g., 2000 offer, intifada); Hamas ideology blocks frozen conflict (unlike Egypt); unilateral pulls fail (Gaza/Lebanon attacks); needs mutual peace partner. Winner: Coleman Hughes (75%). Coleman's specifics (e.g., offers rejected, pullout failures) were more concrete than Dave's occupation-focus, though Dave's U.S. role was a strong point. 9. Iran's Nuclear Ambitions and the 12-Day War Dave's Arguments: Strikes risky/escalatory (could spark regime change catastrophe); Iran negotiating JCPOA (enrichment rose post-Trump exit); no nukes yet; U.S. tolerated Stalin/Mao nukes; avoid war if diplomacy possible. Coleman's Arguments: Strikes effective/no casualties; Iran not negotiating in good faith (60% enrichment unprecedented without bomb intent); history shows high enrichment leads to weapons; prevents worse war. Winner: Coleman Hughes (80%). Coleman's proliferation data and zero-casualty outcome dominated; Dave's escalation fears were speculative.