[W]hy do people increase radicalism when confronted with the failure of their ideology? Because they do not hold positions rationally, but to justify their intuitions, and their intuitions exist to advance their reproductive strategies (signals). And so they will fight to defend those signals at all costs, consistently escalating to the point of violence if necessary. Becuase one’s self-image and social status are one’s property. So one defends them accordingly. People change their positions only when they can both no longer see a successful use of their prior strategy, and they can now see how to use a new narrative to achieve their reproductive strategies. You can see this not only in individuals, but the broader political phenomenon.
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
Q&A: Why Do People Hold Increasingly Radical Positions?
[W]hy do people increase radicalism when confronted with the failure of their ideology? Because they do not hold positions rationally, but to justify their intuitions, and their intuitions exist to advance their reproductive strategies (signals). And so they will fight to defend those signals at all costs, consistently escalating to the point of violence if necessary. Becuase one’s self-image and social status are one’s property. So one defends them accordingly. People change their positions only when they can both no longer see a successful use of their prior strategy, and they can now see how to use a new narrative to achieve their reproductive strategies. You can see this not only in individuals, but the broader political phenomenon.
-
LIBERTARIANISM INCREASES ECONOMIC VELOCITY AT THE EXPENSE OF NORMATIVE AND GENET
LIBERTARIANISM INCREASES ECONOMIC VELOCITY AT THE EXPENSE OF NORMATIVE AND GENETIC CAPITAL.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 08:33:00 UTC
-
No, self-discipline is a means of accumulating capital (creating inventory)
No, self-discipline is a means of accumulating capital (creating inventory).
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 08:21:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/615072632262762496
Reply addressees: @BourneAdequacy @Nero
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/614839020493873152
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/614839020493873152
-
WRITING: CASE. Look. If Popper can use Italics, then I can use Case. (Yet anothe
WRITING: CASE.
Look. If Popper can use Italics, then I can use Case. (Yet another thing Germans do right.).
Proper casing of names of terms cues the reader.
Using headlines, callouts, paragraph headlines and then bold on keywords has become common in print because it assists in helping the user scan the text to skip what he knows and find what he doesn’t.
The purpose of punctuation is to assist in reading aloud or in the equivalent inner voice.
And good type handling is just good indexing.
So if you still think in antique terms you are just stuck in an obsolete technology.
Sorry. That’s how it is.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 08:07:00 UTC
-
Q&A: Curt. Where Does Pathological Altruism Come From? #tcot #NRx
Q&A: Curt. Where Does Pathological Altruism Come From? http://www.propertarianism.com/8ofFZ #tcot #NRx
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 07:53:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/615065431955668992
-
Q&A: Curt. Where Does Pathological Altruism Come From?
“Where does a memeplex based upon pathological altruism come from? And better yet, how to stop it?”—Ed Herzog
[R]eally great question. And it’s not that hard to deconstruct into reproductive intuitions. We use contributory commons more than any other group on earth. So, it comes from: (1) Indo-European Heroism; (Uniqueness of the west) (2) Status from Contribution to the Commons, and;(3) Obtaining Signals, even Self-Signals of Conspicuous Consumption using “other people’s money”. Progressives tend to be less attractive mates (and it plays out in relationship statistics) so they compensate for reproductive inferiority by demonstrating verbal ‘plumage’ that they’re generous – albeit with other people’s cultural, institutional, genetic, and money capital. We North Sea Peoples are more vulnerable to it. It’s likely because it’s partly genetic. Others encourage it because it advances their power base, and relative status by declining ours. We stopped policing liars when we added women to the franchise. Between puritans, women, and jews, and the excuse of blacks, they were able to use numbers to weaken us enough that the Catholics and Jews could open the floodgates and turn the west into Brazil/India. That’s your answer. As far as I know that is a necessary and sufficient answer. And I suspect it will withstand the test of time.
-
Q&A: Curt. Where Does Pathological Altruism Come From?
“Where does a memeplex based upon pathological altruism come from? And better yet, how to stop it?”—Ed Herzog
[R]eally great question. And it’s not that hard to deconstruct into reproductive intuitions. We use contributory commons more than any other group on earth. So, it comes from: (1) Indo-European Heroism; (Uniqueness of the west) (2) Status from Contribution to the Commons, and;(3) Obtaining Signals, even Self-Signals of Conspicuous Consumption using “other people’s money”. Progressives tend to be less attractive mates (and it plays out in relationship statistics) so they compensate for reproductive inferiority by demonstrating verbal ‘plumage’ that they’re generous – albeit with other people’s cultural, institutional, genetic, and money capital. We North Sea Peoples are more vulnerable to it. It’s likely because it’s partly genetic. Others encourage it because it advances their power base, and relative status by declining ours. We stopped policing liars when we added women to the franchise. Between puritans, women, and jews, and the excuse of blacks, they were able to use numbers to weaken us enough that the Catholics and Jews could open the floodgates and turn the west into Brazil/India. That’s your answer. As far as I know that is a necessary and sufficient answer. And I suspect it will withstand the test of time.
-
LAWS PROHIBIT INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER – CONTRACTS EXCHANGE RIGHTS. In writing a new
LAWS PROHIBIT INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER – CONTRACTS EXCHANGE RIGHTS.
In writing a new constitution, we can easily deprive the government(producers of commons) and the judiciary(adjudication of law) of the ability to make law. The only laws that can possibly exist are those that prohibit a means of free riding (parasitism/imposing costs). And those laws must be found (discovered), theorized.
Conversely, all positive rights can only possibly exist as contractual provisions in matters of exchange. The justness of contracts is something that we know how to do, and have done throughout our history.
Now we can, each of us, either negotiate directly, or grant to some person, or some party, the right to negotiate contracts on our behalf. And to be bound by the contract that they negotiate.
But in no case can I make a contract (a negotiation) that is unlawful – imposes involuntary transfers, or externalizes involuntary transfers. Nor can I engage in deceit in such contracts, by means of verbal obscurantism (non-operational language, or in violation of strict construction, or its quantitative equivalent laundering and pooling (money).
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 07:36:00 UTC
-
@photomatt PLEASE, acquire Barely Editor for WordPress and add to Jetpack. Pleas
@photomatt PLEASE, acquire Barely Editor for WordPress and add to Jetpack. Please? Perfect Front End Editing. Perfect Usability. Please? 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 07:31:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/615059849907408896