Stupid Questions June 2017

Lost purposes? Malthusianism? Selection bias? Iron law of oligarchy?

I don't think that strategy has anything to do with "logical fallacy" or "fallacy of reasoning". Being a clearly named group makes it easier to do political action.

If you are the leader of a woman in tech group it's more likely that a journalist will listen to you then if you are just somebody who scheduled a discussion group. Various decision makers will take you more seriously when you speak for a group than if you just speak for yourself.

Founding a group isn't the best strategy in every case but it's a valid for cases of social activism.

No, I don't, or only a little bit. See Moravec's Paradox: the easiest tasks to program a computer to do are those we are most conscious of. There are parts of the brain that are remarkably plastic, but there is a lot of background processing that we are not aware of.

If you don't believe that exercising willpower drains your willpower, then it actually still does, but you just don't notice it as soon. This has been tested. It's also true that certain mental abilities can be improved with practice, this is just plasticity. Think of it like exercising a muscle. If you overexert yourself, a strong instinct will try to stop you from hurting yourself. Trained athletes can overcome this instinct to some extent, but they still have real physical limits. And of course, appropriate exercise can improve performance over the long term, but again there are real physical limits to how much.

I don't understand your question. Every "hydrophobic liquid" is in a sense a "true solution" of itself.

Perhaps you want to ask, is it possible to have a true solution of an "hydrophobic substance" in the water?

And I guess, no.

Large nation-states have a lot of power and that power allows them to convince people that large-scale national unity is important.

It's easier to lobby large states than to lobby a bunch of small states and that means the think tanks prefer centralization.

Maybe the countries you named also have something else in common, for example geography that makes them easier to defend (I am just guessing here), which allows them to use strategies that are not possible for most other countries.

The obvious answer to why some people like an idea of a big country, is that being a small country next to a big country may be very unfortunate if the big country decides to expand its territory in your direction. More soldiers, greater military budget, greater propaganda budget, more brainpower to develop strategy and tactics, etc. How do you survive this? Saying "because you are clearly superior e.g. technologically" does not quite explain how you survived to the point when you became superior.

Possible answer: your territory sucks; no natural resources, not even enough food. The big country never actually wanted your territory; or at least always had a more attractive alternative. No one was messing with you from the outside, and you succeeded to gradually develop a highly functional society inside.

But if your neighbors are repeatedly trying to take pieces of your territory, the idea of uniting with someone stronger seems attractive.

I'm not sure what idea you're talking about. Are you talking about intranational unity or international unity? Can you give examples?