) Not criticism. Education: This kind of response is one of the reasons I often

😉 Not criticism. Education:

This kind of response is one of the reasons I often question working in public because it demonstrates people’s tendency for ‘fitting’ – to take any argument that is vaguely analogous to their priors and convert it from causality to analogy and claim it’s still causal. It’s a form of involuntary sophistry, and unfortunately, that sophistry is a product of human cognition’s ‘generalization’ at the expense of causation combined with both abrahamic religion and the platonic branch of european philosophy,

Capitalism(maximization of return on responsibility) and Socialism (maximum return on externalization of responsibility) do in fact correspond to male and female instincts for male status by responsibility for capital by competition and conflict vs female status by access to consumption without responsibiilty for it, to avoid competition and conflict.

I might understand what you intend to say but without the causality (responsibility, status) the meaning is obscured and your argument is easily dismissed (and causes others to dismiss our arguments) – which is why I’m ‘sensitive’ to such things.

What I desperately try to each is first principles. And hyper-capitalization vs hyper-consumption is only causal (not preference) when it originates in the sex differences in risk reward obtained by differences in responsibility: male for polity, and female for her and her offspring alone.

Hope this helps.
Cheers. 😉

Reply addressees: @thedualMan