I am curious as to your views on Biofoundationalism. I am not familiar with the concept, but going by your definition—“your views are (at least partially) determined by your temperament” I find it to sync rather well with the way I see the world. Different people with different temperaments can understand the proper motivations of law entirely differently, and when you dig down into why they believe the way they do… One often finds irreconcilable differences between them. Intelligent minds can disagree, after all.
completely agree with your observations. Biofoundationalism is my own term and political framework I created that ties biological temperament, moral foundations, and political beliefs as derivatives of each other. drawing from brain scans and stripping down political motivations to their core elements.
then it overlays that onto how nations evolve over time and how these political phenotypes express themselves.
Thank you for the reply! I’d love to read it. I’m afraid I’m in a country that blocks Twitter and have been having VPN issues (спасибо, правительство) so I hope to see it on Substack as well.
Good news is that the court opinions are plastic, and change with the seasons. Reading the top 100 Supreme Court cases made me realize the judges have always been making up the law as they go along.
But judges have more accountability than the bureaucrats, and different incentive structures.
agree. chevron overruling is def a positive thing. I'm just elaborating on how the strategy evolves and changes with the judiciary holding all the cards and being more politicized than people give it credit for. in addition to breaking down how a judge is actually processing information, or at least how he's guided by information.
It's not fake news, it's fake narrative: Biofoundationalism, Part 3
So— vote to get conservative judges and reinforce the dykes and levies, or refrain from voting along Yarvinist lines in recognition that Cthulhu swims left no matter what?
it's better to drive the speedlimit to a bad destination than drive there on the autobahn. the essence of this is to distill down what informs judicial decisions and how they are at their root, moral expressions applied to legislature.
a decadent environment breeds liberalism like a dirty one breeds bacteria. you can put some disinfectant on there, it helps, but to fix the issue it's good to understand what's actually creating it. hopefully it saves people a whole lot of wasted time on 'culture posting' or political WWE slopgossip, and redirects their focus to distal causes, not proximate distractions.
I think this question is so broad and interpretive there's really not much point to answering it. I don't even know how to answer it. "moral" as a utility function, essentially?
I think you should do the thing that you think contravenes the negative force you have identified, and if you can't take immediate steps on your own to fix it, you should do what you can to help your fellow man understand it (what this essay is).
'moral' as it pertains to politics is in the eye of the beholder, because what you consider moral and what the other guy considers immoral is a temperamental derivative, not a reasoned stance. I will elaborate on this further in an upcoming series called Biofoundationalism.
I appreciate the question btw, I hope I don't come off as harsh or dismissive, it's not my intent at all. I'm just trying to be candid and clear.
I followed becuae you have intresting unorthodox views (e.g. the potential that astrology has some scientific backing). However your posts never go into enough detail and often have in accuracies. The presidents is not just a figurehead plus appointing judges. For example, he has significant power in the legislative process with his veto power. He also leads foreign relations and makes the most important military decisions. Due to these inaccuracies I have to unfollow
those are superficial executive descriptions that are technically correct but functionally untrue. the president has little impact on much of that. the Queen of England can also overrule parliament, officially. how's that work out in practice nowadays?
the military is functionally autonomous. maybe the president approves a Syrian airstrike or a daring kill of Osama Bin Laden, but this is fundamentally run by the CIA and generals. unless the optics look bad, the president doesn't do anything here.
congress makes all budgeting and legal decisions. the senate ratifies treaties. "executive orders" are tantamount to a demanding request that courts can strike down as they please.
and leading foreign relations is a nice way to say spokesperson/figurehead. there's some substance there but the office can do little if anything unilaterally.
the veto is something. note I said "mostly" a totem.
if this was FDR or Lincoln, yes that's certainly no figurehead. but that's not at all what the office is today.
I am curious as to your views on Biofoundationalism. I am not familiar with the concept, but going by your definition—“your views are (at least partially) determined by your temperament” I find it to sync rather well with the way I see the world. Different people with different temperaments can understand the proper motivations of law entirely differently, and when you dig down into why they believe the way they do… One often finds irreconcilable differences between them. Intelligent minds can disagree, after all.
completely agree with your observations. Biofoundationalism is my own term and political framework I created that ties biological temperament, moral foundations, and political beliefs as derivatives of each other. drawing from brain scans and stripping down political motivations to their core elements.
then it overlays that onto how nations evolve over time and how these political phenotypes express themselves.
here's a link to the series if interested that I've been publishing to twitter, I'm going to refactor these essays before publishing on here: https://x.com/BackTheBunny/status/1735175459288264798
Thank you for the reply! I’d love to read it. I’m afraid I’m in a country that blocks Twitter and have been having VPN issues (спасибо, правительство) so I hope to see it on Substack as well.
Good news is that the court opinions are plastic, and change with the seasons. Reading the top 100 Supreme Court cases made me realize the judges have always been making up the law as they go along.
But judges have more accountability than the bureaucrats, and different incentive structures.
agree. chevron overruling is def a positive thing. I'm just elaborating on how the strategy evolves and changes with the judiciary holding all the cards and being more politicized than people give it credit for. in addition to breaking down how a judge is actually processing information, or at least how he's guided by information.
It's not fake news, it's fake narrative: Biofoundationalism, Part 3
Yes. Those are all good points.
So— vote to get conservative judges and reinforce the dykes and levies, or refrain from voting along Yarvinist lines in recognition that Cthulhu swims left no matter what?
it's better to drive the speedlimit to a bad destination than drive there on the autobahn. the essence of this is to distill down what informs judicial decisions and how they are at their root, moral expressions applied to legislature.
a decadent environment breeds liberalism like a dirty one breeds bacteria. you can put some disinfectant on there, it helps, but to fix the issue it's good to understand what's actually creating it. hopefully it saves people a whole lot of wasted time on 'culture posting' or political WWE slopgossip, and redirects their focus to distal causes, not proximate distractions.
Do you consider it moral to vote in a system where your vote can’t possibly affect the forces that are making it worse?
I think this question is so broad and interpretive there's really not much point to answering it. I don't even know how to answer it. "moral" as a utility function, essentially?
I think you should do the thing that you think contravenes the negative force you have identified, and if you can't take immediate steps on your own to fix it, you should do what you can to help your fellow man understand it (what this essay is).
'moral' as it pertains to politics is in the eye of the beholder, because what you consider moral and what the other guy considers immoral is a temperamental derivative, not a reasoned stance. I will elaborate on this further in an upcoming series called Biofoundationalism.
I appreciate the question btw, I hope I don't come off as harsh or dismissive, it's not my intent at all. I'm just trying to be candid and clear.
I followed becuae you have intresting unorthodox views (e.g. the potential that astrology has some scientific backing). However your posts never go into enough detail and often have in accuracies. The presidents is not just a figurehead plus appointing judges. For example, he has significant power in the legislative process with his veto power. He also leads foreign relations and makes the most important military decisions. Due to these inaccuracies I have to unfollow
those are superficial executive descriptions that are technically correct but functionally untrue. the president has little impact on much of that. the Queen of England can also overrule parliament, officially. how's that work out in practice nowadays?
the military is functionally autonomous. maybe the president approves a Syrian airstrike or a daring kill of Osama Bin Laden, but this is fundamentally run by the CIA and generals. unless the optics look bad, the president doesn't do anything here.
congress makes all budgeting and legal decisions. the senate ratifies treaties. "executive orders" are tantamount to a demanding request that courts can strike down as they please.
and leading foreign relations is a nice way to say spokesperson/figurehead. there's some substance there but the office can do little if anything unilaterally.
the veto is something. note I said "mostly" a totem.
if this was FDR or Lincoln, yes that's certainly no figurehead. but that's not at all what the office is today.