Bravo. I’m not sure it can be said better, more simply, and more clearly. So yes

Bravo. I’m not sure it can be said better, more simply, and more clearly. So yes. This is excellent ’10k foot view’ of the problem.

You might add also that:
(a) that’s a distribution between consumption in time and capitalizing over time.
(b) This means that the distribution provides ‘coverage’ for seeking opportunity across the ‘opportunity surface’ of time and space.
(c) In other words it allows us to make use of human hyper-adaptability (compared to all other life forms) to exploit maximum opportunities – all these ‘biases’ are better thought of as a division of cognitive and instinctual labor satisfying hyper-adaptability which is the human evolutionary advantage.
(d) So the distribution preserves the evolutionary direction AND the potential to adapt to changing circumstances – in other words we don’t want everyone to be the same.
(e) All that’s necessary is that a sufficient number of systematizing capitalizing men maintain direction while some other part of the distribution is expressed as a current (temporary) advantage.
(f) and the problem of the age is that we have allowed women into economy and polity and institutions without regulating against their hyperconsumption – and that they’ve destroyed capitalizatino across the entire spectrum.
(g) and this number of women is sufficient to overload the dominant male capitalizing bias – only because we have used law to privilege the feminine and constrain the masculine – in precisely those areas (capital over time) that we should not.
(h) but as I’ve illustrated, this female antisocial behavior which they falsely intuit is virtuous can be legislated against just like male antisocial behavior.
(i) The difference is that we must prohibit female irresponsibility and antisocial behavior as thoroughly as we have the male.
And that’s what my work does.

Cheers

Reply addressees: @FatherIsTalking