"Individualism is a trend that predates the twentieth century, but Twenge sees it accelerating recently. For her, individualism is: "… a worldview that places more emphasis on the individual self… Individualistic cultures such as the U.S. value freedom, independence, and equality...'"
But hasn't recent history seen a rise in ideological conformity? In "cancel culture"? That seems the opposite of individualism. "Equality" has a complicated relation to individualism. It is traditional to distinguish "equality of opportunity" ("free to be, you and me") which is generally favorable to individualism and "equality of result", which is generally disfavorable. And, of course, to be ridiculously literal, if everyone is perfectly equal, everyone is the same; there is no individualism at all. There seems to have been a change in culture (at least elite culture) in how one is allowed to be an individual and how one is supposed to conform; perhaps more freedom is one aspect requires less freedom in another. As I once cynically remarked, respectable opinion seems to be:
Doesn't Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor (in The Brothers Karamazov) say something similar to Schwartz and the Taliban? That people can't handle freedom and choice, and that he's doing them a favor by making sure they don't have the opportunity.
"Government agencies are not under economic pressure to do business process redesign."
This is a fundamentally under appreciated fundamental attribute of government. I think many people just can't grasp that government is different from other organizations in this very important aspect, which aspect puts a hard limit on how large a government can get and how much it can do. Keeping organizations aligned and not internally blocking themselves is constant work, and no one in government has the incentive to do that work. (Except sometimes when the fate of the state itself is on the line, and even then historically it doesn't always happen.)
Deirdre McCloskey has a very apposite riff on this in _Bourgeois Equality_ in the context of Italian corruption and incompetence, and the cultural assumption that those responsible for both will get away with it as long as they have checked all legally mandated boxes in the process.
Kling’s citation - the point in Grahams post (referenced by the Zvi) describing the ideal teacher/student relationship as often backward - rhymes with the general sentiment here, which is curious.
"Chinese friend of Paul Graham estimates 90% of highly educated 25-year-old Chinese citizens would come to USA if handed a green card. If we made this our policy, we would cripple China and supercharge America. If you think we have to ‘beat China’ in any sense, or are worried about Chinese AI, or arguing that we can’t slow down on AI because we must beat China, and are not screaming for this immigration policy from the rooftops, your position is not coherent."
Great idea if you want to import 100's of 1000's of CCP spies.
This is the same error "free trade" advocates make. They assume always and everywhere non-hostile partners.
This is not the knock-down argument you think it is. Yes, if we took a lot more Chinese immigrants, some nontrivial number of them would be spies. The pro-immigration position isn't that this wouldn't occur or would not be a problem. It's that the magnitude of the problem would be vastly outweighed both by the absolute benefits of adding millions of highly productive Chinese immigrants to the American economy, and the relative status benefit of denying the CCP the minds and tax payments of those same millions.
Agree—Zvi Moshowitz cannot call anyone else’s position incoherent until he can specify (1) whether the current policy over the last few decades has not been a boon to the CCP in stealing US intellectual property and (2) how he proposes to cull for such intellectual theft going forward.
Even if your “success” rate is very high, one person can do a lot of damage. And kicking them out after the fact does not undo that damage.
'Moreover, it seems like an adolescence that is less adventurous and more sheltered.'
Oh its not 'moreover' it is explicitly sheltering that is necessary to extend adolescence. You can go to college and have a family early and you can be a high school drop out and live in your parents basement playing video games all day. The thing about becoming an adult is that it is mostly mental growth due to experiences. The whole 'brain isn't fully formed until 25' is a red herring, it is still mostly formed and you can still make adult decisions before then. What sheltering does is prevent experiences which makes new situations anxiety inducing, which makes decision making difficult to impossible.
Calling it extended adolescence is incorrect, and it gives the impression that they are getting to be kids longer and then will go on to be adults. This is more like domestication of dogs, and these people are having specific traits pruned out of them leaving them partially dependent (be it on their parents or the state) indefinitely.
Republicans have proposed skills based immigration systems many times and been rejected. It's not as if the offer isn't out there, it just doesn't increase Democratic vote share enough to be worth the trade.
Weight loss:
It's hard to get a prescription for the branded weight loss drugs. Yes I'm aware that some people lie to teledocs to get it, I'm talking legit. This is the big barrier, not cost, most of which is covered by insurance. If you could get the prescription regulations loosened you could get the manufactures to reduce the cost in exchange.
If we are talking ozempic/wegovy and mounjari, I'm pretty it's not regulation keeping weight loss drugs from people. FDA doesn't stop off-label use, insurance companies that won't cover a use and standards of practice set by doctors that discourage use do that.
All I know if that I asked for it and the doctor won't give it to me because I don't meet the criteria. If they changed the criteria tomorrow my doctor would have no problem writing me a prescription, and the drug companies spend a lot of money trying to get the criteria changed.
Moshowitz: We would have to modulate the numbers of Chinese immigrants but basically LOTS more than now. I cannot understand how China hawks do not understand this.
Chinese in non-Chinese countries owe total allegience to China. This has been true especially since the drive to repress Cino languages in favour of Mandarin.
I missed this part of the Zvi article (they are always so long, though he does tell you to skip bits), so I am sure some of what he says on China is just a rhetorical flourish, but....
He is wrong on Chinese migration for a simple reason. There may be some benefit, but there will be some cost. The optimal level will balance the marginal benefit and marginal cost and this won't be at a level where you give all young Chinese a greencard.
Nevertheless he could be correct to say offering more greencards to that target group could be beneficial, though I think his source massively overestimates how appealling the US is for a lot of Chinese.
Zvi sounds a lot like liberals (leftists do worse things) when they make what I think is their most common big mistake. They ignore second order effects. Ok, maybe belief in big government is a bigger mistake but often the two go together. Anyway, why is Zvi so sure it would work the way he thinks? Is it possible China could use this to send more spies? Would it prompt them to send disruptors or even terrorists? If they couldn't use it to their advantage what might they do? Restrict students from attending US schools? Restrict emigration? What else might go wrong?
Why is Zvi so sure those who don't agree with him have an incoherent position? Sounds a bit like a fundamentalist to me.
I suspect the GLP and GIP agonists are going to turn out to be quite dangerous under long term usage, which is what is required to maintain any weight loss. Once on them, you aren't likely to ever be able to stop taking them.
"90% of highly educated 25-year-old Chinese citizens would come to USA if handed a green card. If we made this our policy, we would cripple China and supercharge America. "
And how many are going to go back to China with the knowledge they've gleaned? These aren't refugees who have been badly treated by their home country, remember.
We cripple most of the world so , hell, why not China as well. Drain their brsins. -very poetic- And let's bring Russa to it knees, also...let's keep this ball rolling into the heat of the night (and day). Boy, it's getting hot out there.
"Individualism is a trend that predates the twentieth century, but Twenge sees it accelerating recently. For her, individualism is: "… a worldview that places more emphasis on the individual self… Individualistic cultures such as the U.S. value freedom, independence, and equality...'"
But hasn't recent history seen a rise in ideological conformity? In "cancel culture"? That seems the opposite of individualism. "Equality" has a complicated relation to individualism. It is traditional to distinguish "equality of opportunity" ("free to be, you and me") which is generally favorable to individualism and "equality of result", which is generally disfavorable. And, of course, to be ridiculously literal, if everyone is perfectly equal, everyone is the same; there is no individualism at all. There seems to have been a change in culture (at least elite culture) in how one is allowed to be an individual and how one is supposed to conform; perhaps more freedom is one aspect requires less freedom in another. As I once cynically remarked, respectable opinion seems to be:
The best diversity is
Where everyone looks different
And thinks like me.
Doesn't Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor (in The Brothers Karamazov) say something similar to Schwartz and the Taliban? That people can't handle freedom and choice, and that he's doing them a favor by making sure they don't have the opportunity.
"Government agencies are not under economic pressure to do business process redesign."
This is a fundamentally under appreciated fundamental attribute of government. I think many people just can't grasp that government is different from other organizations in this very important aspect, which aspect puts a hard limit on how large a government can get and how much it can do. Keeping organizations aligned and not internally blocking themselves is constant work, and no one in government has the incentive to do that work. (Except sometimes when the fate of the state itself is on the line, and even then historically it doesn't always happen.)
8 year term limits on govt employees reduces this problem more than any current realistic policies.
You mean term limits on bureaucrats as well as elected officials? I would be down with that.
Deirdre McCloskey has a very apposite riff on this in _Bourgeois Equality_ in the context of Italian corruption and incompetence, and the cultural assumption that those responsible for both will get away with it as long as they have checked all legally mandated boxes in the process.
Kling’s citation - the point in Grahams post (referenced by the Zvi) describing the ideal teacher/student relationship as often backward - rhymes with the general sentiment here, which is curious.
"Chinese friend of Paul Graham estimates 90% of highly educated 25-year-old Chinese citizens would come to USA if handed a green card. If we made this our policy, we would cripple China and supercharge America. If you think we have to ‘beat China’ in any sense, or are worried about Chinese AI, or arguing that we can’t slow down on AI because we must beat China, and are not screaming for this immigration policy from the rooftops, your position is not coherent."
Great idea if you want to import 100's of 1000's of CCP spies.
This is the same error "free trade" advocates make. They assume always and everywhere non-hostile partners.
This is not the knock-down argument you think it is. Yes, if we took a lot more Chinese immigrants, some nontrivial number of them would be spies. The pro-immigration position isn't that this wouldn't occur or would not be a problem. It's that the magnitude of the problem would be vastly outweighed both by the absolute benefits of adding millions of highly productive Chinese immigrants to the American economy, and the relative status benefit of denying the CCP the minds and tax payments of those same millions.
That's because in your final analysis, GDP number goes up is literally the bottom line.
Agree—Zvi Moshowitz cannot call anyone else’s position incoherent until he can specify (1) whether the current policy over the last few decades has not been a boon to the CCP in stealing US intellectual property and (2) how he proposes to cull for such intellectual theft going forward.
Even if your “success” rate is very high, one person can do a lot of damage. And kicking them out after the fact does not undo that damage.
'Moreover, it seems like an adolescence that is less adventurous and more sheltered.'
Oh its not 'moreover' it is explicitly sheltering that is necessary to extend adolescence. You can go to college and have a family early and you can be a high school drop out and live in your parents basement playing video games all day. The thing about becoming an adult is that it is mostly mental growth due to experiences. The whole 'brain isn't fully formed until 25' is a red herring, it is still mostly formed and you can still make adult decisions before then. What sheltering does is prevent experiences which makes new situations anxiety inducing, which makes decision making difficult to impossible.
Calling it extended adolescence is incorrect, and it gives the impression that they are getting to be kids longer and then will go on to be adults. This is more like domestication of dogs, and these people are having specific traits pruned out of them leaving them partially dependent (be it on their parents or the state) indefinitely.
I’ve waited what seems my whole life to heard someone make this pun. Thanks!!
“Can we for once not have a massive deadweight loss triangle, and instead have massive weight loss”.
Immigration:
Republicans have proposed skills based immigration systems many times and been rejected. It's not as if the offer isn't out there, it just doesn't increase Democratic vote share enough to be worth the trade.
Weight loss:
It's hard to get a prescription for the branded weight loss drugs. Yes I'm aware that some people lie to teledocs to get it, I'm talking legit. This is the big barrier, not cost, most of which is covered by insurance. If you could get the prescription regulations loosened you could get the manufactures to reduce the cost in exchange.
Republicans had full control of the government 2016-18 and the was negative move toward merit based immigration reform.
If we are talking ozempic/wegovy and mounjari, I'm pretty it's not regulation keeping weight loss drugs from people. FDA doesn't stop off-label use, insurance companies that won't cover a use and standards of practice set by doctors that discourage use do that.
All I know if that I asked for it and the doctor won't give it to me because I don't meet the criteria. If they changed the criteria tomorrow my doctor would have no problem writing me a prescription, and the drug companies spend a lot of money trying to get the criteria changed.
Moshowitz: We would have to modulate the numbers of Chinese immigrants but basically LOTS more than now. I cannot understand how China hawks do not understand this.
Yeah free green cards would risk provoking a Berlin Wall type situation.
Green cards for graduates could be doable provided we can prevent scam "universities."
People are gullible.
Chinese in non-Chinese countries owe total allegience to China. This has been true especially since the drive to repress Cino languages in favour of Mandarin.
Asking a friend anything and extrapolating from the answer thinking it significant, and possibly dispositive is silly.
I missed this part of the Zvi article (they are always so long, though he does tell you to skip bits), so I am sure some of what he says on China is just a rhetorical flourish, but....
He is wrong on Chinese migration for a simple reason. There may be some benefit, but there will be some cost. The optimal level will balance the marginal benefit and marginal cost and this won't be at a level where you give all young Chinese a greencard.
Nevertheless he could be correct to say offering more greencards to that target group could be beneficial, though I think his source massively overestimates how appealling the US is for a lot of Chinese.
Zvi sounds a lot like liberals (leftists do worse things) when they make what I think is their most common big mistake. They ignore second order effects. Ok, maybe belief in big government is a bigger mistake but often the two go together. Anyway, why is Zvi so sure it would work the way he thinks? Is it possible China could use this to send more spies? Would it prompt them to send disruptors or even terrorists? If they couldn't use it to their advantage what might they do? Restrict students from attending US schools? Restrict emigration? What else might go wrong?
Why is Zvi so sure those who don't agree with him have an incoherent position? Sounds a bit like a fundamentalist to me.
I suspect the GLP and GIP agonists are going to turn out to be quite dangerous under long term usage, which is what is required to maintain any weight loss. Once on them, you aren't likely to ever be able to stop taking them.
"90% of highly educated 25-year-old Chinese citizens would come to USA if handed a green card. If we made this our policy, we would cripple China and supercharge America. "
And how many are going to go back to China with the knowledge they've gleaned? These aren't refugees who have been badly treated by their home country, remember.
Many of these people already go to school here and return to China because they struggle getting a green card.
We cripple most of the world so , hell, why not China as well. Drain their brsins. -very poetic- And let's bring Russa to it knees, also...let's keep this ball rolling into the heat of the night (and day). Boy, it's getting hot out there.