Neuralink 'Participant 1' says his life has changed

There used to be less of that on HN, my theory is younger accounts that are more politically extreme/lefty are now here as the younger generation graduates school and posts more on HN.

There's some historical irony too since communism came out of highly educated academic elites and is responsible for an enormous amount of death and value destruction. Ideological driven academics that think they're better than everyone are particularly good at crafting insane ideologies someone outside of that insular community would not, then leveraging institutional and cultural power to force it on everyone else. The woke and gender ideologies share similar origins, same for DEI.

It's a political and ideological monoculture and it's a dangerous mixture of incredibly confidently smug and wrong.

Worth picking up Peter Thiel's first book which goes into this in some detail (he wrote it pretty young, observing the early start of this when he was at Stanford). It's wildly prescient and was from the mid 90s iirc.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideo...

I'm very midwitted. 50% of the planet is below the mean after all..

A lot mediocre students I knew in school stayed on to do more school because they were not able to do something else. A lot of degrees and classes are frankly bullshit and this problem has gotten worse since the 60s - the details matter. Time wasted studying pseudo-intellectual nonsense doesn't imply someone has a better understanding of the world than someone else (often the opposite) - just that they wasted time getting indoctrinated in a particular culture (often subsidized by others if not the taxpayer).

What about the people doing interesting and useful things in society, building stuff, creating wealth - what these people think matters a lot more than someone that got a PHD on olfactory ethics. Not all education is equal.

Even then, the meta analysis matters less than the details of the actual underlying argument. Appeal to authority and experts is a poor substitute for rigorous good faith debate of the actual issues.

There's a reason William F. Buckley said he would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people listed in the phone book than by the faculty members from Harvard.

"I am obliged to confess that I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University. Not, heaven knows, because I hold lightly the brainpower or knowledge or generosity or even the affability of the Harvard faculty: but because I greatly fear intellectual arrogance, and that is a distinguishing characteristic of the university which refuses to accept any common premise."

So it's not that I dispute the data that there's a lefty bias in universities (there obviously is), I dispute what that actually means.

The issue at hand isn't perceived bias in universities, it's voting tendencies of people who have higher education.

PS, this conversation is a waste of both of our times. I won't be continuing it. Because there is no good faith either side. I'm certainly not going to display any and I aver you aren't either, but you can judge for yourself.

Arguably they go hand in hand, take young people and immerse them in a political/ideological monoculture for four formative years and it's not surprising many come out saying the same things and voting the same way all of their professors did, there's a lack of viewpoint diversity. Most people are mimetic, exposure to the best arguments from an intellectually diverse curriculum would be great but that's not what universities (broadly) are today. It's very hard to think for yourself, even harder when immersed in a place where ideological conformity is rigidly enforced.

FWIW I thought your comment was in good faith, we just don't agree.

They are doing so much damage to institutions and ultimately to people that their loss in 2028 will be damned near inevitable leaving them no course of action to stay out of prison other tha what they have already outlined which is to end democracy.

There is no substantial opposition from the Republicans singly or in groups. They are barely willing to verbally chastise him and none dare vote in a meaningful way that would impact his plans.

They were barely willing to admit he wasn't pres in 2021 when he was nothing.

That act alone pretty much disqualifies you from being able to talk about intelligence in the first place.

In reality, the modern democrats are pretty much the exact center. Any sensible traditional right leaning policy like free market capitalism, gun ownership, and immigration enforcement is already part of the liberal Democratic platform.

The reason that what I said holds true should be self evident. One of the cornerstone of modern conservativism is small government and reduced government spending. Yet Trump is pretty much doing the exact opposite of this. So to to even begin talking about why conservatism is valid, you have a LONG bridge to cross of somehow proving that Trump objectively the better choice, which at this point would require exceptionally extraordinary evidence.

Another way of testing intelligence is basically to ask the question - what concrete evidence would it take for you to change your mind to the opposite view on a certain subject? For the question of what is better for society, Democrats and their policies vs Republicans and their policies, no conservative can provide a clear answer on what would it take for them to change their mind.

Also this https://www.project2025.observer/en

So please understand that when you claim that these things are false, it is absolutely ok for people to assume you are mentally ill. Because you chose to live in a world inside your head instead of actual reality.

Random thing to be concerned about, and also very fringe evidence of "probably".

> The democrat's failure on immigration broadly (both at the border and on policy) is also something driving people away from them.

Immigration was never an issue - unemployment was at a record low especially after Covid, and crime was on its way down. Democrats had a bill that targeted immigration reform, which included provision for more funding to CBP and most importantly immigration hearings so that we can actually separate the people who are illegal versus people who are truly under refugee status and shown that they are willing to work and contribute. Trump told the Republicans to veto the bill because the immigration issue would make him look good in elections. You fell for it.

>Compare the extreme competence/political capability of someone like Elon Musk

You mean the guy that funded a candidate, that within 4 months told him to fuck off while passing the BBB that removed a major source of funding for his company? You mean the guy that bet Sam Harris 1mil after saying US wouldn't see more than 35k cases of Covid, only to reneg on the bet and block Sam?

Good one chief.

>The left has pushed identity based culture issues around DEI and gender ideology that have had serious negative effects up to and including surgical operations on children due to gender affirming care

A) Don't lump democrtats with the left. B) Surgical operations on children for gender affirmg care is a non issue, the number of these is incredibly small (and no, the argument Democrats would have increase this doesn't fly). As for DEI, you have to prove with numbers that this was harming American companies and institutions, in terms of economic impact or other factors.

>Also when it comes to guns, I live in California - the democrats are hardly the gun friendly party.

State politics =/= government politics. States have their right to enforce additional laws. Thats in the Constitution.

And again, above all, even if Im completely wrong on all of this, you still have a convicted felon who tried to coup the government, whos name was on the Epstein list with evidence of him being at parties, with Project 2025 thats halfway complete, who does dictator shit every single week. It would take an extraordinary amount of evidence to prove that Kamala was the worst choice.

Part of me really hopes that republicans win in 2026 and 2028, because as bad as things are now, they can get much much worse. Because people like you need to really suffer in daily lives to ever understand that Republican policies can lead to lives where you are concerned about being able to feed your kids instead of having the privilege to worry about tiny issues like DEI.

Millions crossed the border illegally under Biden, that was reduced to near zero after the election, no bullshit bill required. The bill was vetoed because it was bad policy, the new bill got the ICE funding without the concessions. The immigration is having negative effects, but they're primarily experienced by the poor in areas that have to live near them, deal with crime, and can't afford to live elsewhere - you're likely insulated from it. This is true generally for the luxury beliefs held by the left, they don't experience their failures, those that do don't vote for them.

"Project 2025" policy suggestions include a lot of things I (and others) think are good.

State is different than federal, but democrats are hardly good on this at the federal level either and every blue state where they have power is worse on this issue.

Refusing to recognize the trans nonsense doesn't take ownership of how much that issue is pushed by the democrats. It's poisoned the brand and alienates all but the hardest line lefty progressives. That ideology has lead to real harm - it should be trivial to come out against that, same with the ignorant mainstream democrat jew hatred.

The DEI stuff is a deep rot - anti-west and in directly conflict with American values about equality and individualism. The public hates it.

> "Republican policies can lead to lives where you are concerned about being able to feed your kids"

This is retarded. The likely Mayor of NY is running on government run grocery stores - famously known for their scarcity and failure. Harris ran on price controls for groceries and Elizabeth Warren embarrassingly tried to defend this. Democratic economic policy has lead to enormous waste and failure. SF, LA, etc. lots of examples of bad policy and bad outcomes. Mediocrity driven by decision making that focused on identity over competence. The inflation experienced under Biden was extreme and driven by their bad policy decisions. The level of Biden making any decisions at all is unclear given his capacity, a lot of it was probably his unelected staff.

Then there's also the political violence and celebration of it. Luigi Mangione, Trump assassination attempts, "Free Palestine" execution of two jews in DC etc. The stars like AOC hold open contempt for capitalism and this is mainstream in the party.

If you can't appreciate what Musk has achieved that again says more about you. Nobody is perfect. I'd much rather see people trying hard to earnestly solve problems than what we saw with the Biden/Harris campaign. Tesla and SpaceX are amazing. Even the smaller projects like Neuralink described in this post are getting important results.

You've aligned yourself with a losing coalition - there's a reason the republicans have expanded their tent while the democrats have reduced theirs to a smaller and smaller out of touch ideological extreme.

I don't excuse Trump's behavior on 1/6, but a choice is forced between two options and I (and the majority of the voting public) thought Harris was worse, this again should be pretty damning of how bad the problem is on the democrat's side. It's why he had a decisive democratic electoral victory including the popular vote. There are good reasons for this, you dismiss them at your own peril.

Glad you finally had the balls to say this. Dunno why you had to type all that up. Next time, just say you would rather have a dictator in charge who you align with ideologically, and that the most important thing to you.

The “dictator” framing also reveals your own unfalsifiable assumption - that Trump is inherently authoritarian regardless of policy outcomes or democratic processes. It’s the kind of tribal reasoning that makes genuine political discourse nearly impossible.

Pretty much proves my point about ideological capture better than any argument could.

So much for your “critical thinking”.