SCOTT Yes. You got there. As elegantly as you do with regularity. For the broade

SCOTT
Yes. You got there. As elegantly as you do with regularity.

For the broader audience: once you realize that the entirety of the conflict of the 20th is the introduction of women into economy and polity and the subsequent introduction of the pill, and the resulting reproductive, social, economic, and political ability for the feminine instinct, intuition, and mind to pursue it’s irresponsible, hyperconsumption (of everything from attention to capital), socialization of losses, privatizing of commons, and use of the feminine means of antisocial behavior as warfare (undermining, canceling, sedition, baiting into hazard, victim claiming, oppression claiming), and that the mating problem is merely the end result of the natural sequence of unregulated antisocial feminine expression, you subsequently realize that the problem isn’t our civilization it’s not just our mating, it’s our women, and that women have the precisely opposite long term instincts, intuitions that men do – despite the differences between male social and economic classes. It’s only the third time in history it’s been possible. In late Sparta. In late ancient Rome. And in the late modern West. With the same outcome every time.

There are no surviving feminine polities for a reason. Even matrilineal polities are still politically paternal for inescapable evolutionary reasons of sex differences in perception, disambiguation, valuation, prediction, and preference.

Why? The brains of the sexes evolved to divide the labor of time, population, and space with women the short, small, and near, and men the long, large and far. We label this under the technical term ’empathizing vs systematizing’ or colloquial ‘feels vs reals’ but the causality of that difference is the division of labor in time, population and space.

Correction of our condition is rather easy really. But I won’t get into correcting incentives in this post. It’s long enough already.

You probably won’t read this but I’ll have said it anyway. 😉

If you want me to go into the ‘science’ behind this I’m happy to at excruciating detail. I’m sure we would have an interesting discussion. No one of consequence ever converses with me without being affected by having done so. 😉

Cheers

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation

Reply addressees: @ScottAdamsSays