The problem is we sort into near peer groups of common cognitive frame, and we no longer, as did our ancestors, work in teams with distributions of abilities. So we cognitively fragment as much as we do socially and politically.
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-08 22:02:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821668241220964758
Reply addressees: @CuriousKonkie
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821641235486093734
(In other words, We’re all playing positions on the same team. We just encounter the problem that when intellectuals try to reach a broader audience, the chasm of understanding requires we create vehicles for communicating concepts to others)
I understand Ricardo’s work and mind pretty clearly, certainly Rudyard’s, and Hanson’s, MacDonald’s and dozens of others.
It’s much better to slay the beast from multiple directions with different arrows it cannot evade, than it is to attempt to defeat it with a single lance it might avoid. 😉
Reply addressees: @Lord__Sousa @whatifalthist @dr_duchesne
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-08 22:00:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821667786235551744
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821646316197277904
Rudyard is my friend and someone very dear to me – and I recognize his use of framing for purposes such as creating king of the hill games to obtain information from social media (research), his strategy of addressing the market (positioning), and his very serious conviction regarding spirituality (his true nature).
Despite Rudyard’s attempt to be ‘one of the guys’ at times, his use of pop culture humor, and partly because of his age, it’s sometimes not obvious how sophisticated are his understanding, his thinking, hist strategy, and his ambitions.
When I am concerned about something that rudyard says or does I say so, and once we discuss it I find that in general he is correct. It’s just I was failing to grasp the experiment he was attempting to run. And he learns from those experiments. ( I do exactly the same thing for the same reasons – and have written about it quite a bit, but sometimes I don’t quite predict his intentions).
So you might want to read between the lines if you’re a sophisticated follower of both of us.
Rudyard is a precious asset that is just coming into early maturity and I view his future as a significant one.
Affections
CD
Reply addressees: @Lord__Sousa @whatifalthist @dr_duchesne
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-08 21:57:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821666962646429697
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821646316197277904
No, women have much higher sensitivity to negative emotions, depend more on emotional intuition rather than systematic generalization, are more vulnerable to fantasy (overthinking), and are more regulated by external social pressures than internal self regulation. As such some equivalent of self regulation must be provided by training – even for women who learn to mask their neuroticism well.
Reply addressees: @IsaacB76404445
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-08 21:48:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821664826688761856
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821653697920954825
sorry, but religion in the sense of supernatural religion has failed – it will continue its decline until it hits the margin of about twenty percent, most of whom will be women, because supernatural religion requires an empathic mind (not a systemic one despite the efforts of theologians), and the modern world cannot tolerate the supernatural and occult except at that margin, because it is systemically inconsistent with observed existence.
Supernatural Religion evolved to suppress neuroticism (negative thoughts) and spread by men who used it to regulate women and simple men.
It doesn’t work any longer.
China benefited from it’s retention of philosophy and evasion of abrahamic and hindu religion. It could tolerate buddhism which is more a way of life stated in pseudoscience than a religion.
Reply addressees: @23snakehead
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-08 19:56:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821636600331116544
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821635439838564660
RT @dr_duchesne: @AyoCaesar Ash, let’s debate this, or are you afraid I will refute you the way I always do against haters of whites? My th…
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-08 19:52:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821635665521787195
Agreed.
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-08 19:52:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821635515671535779
Reply addressees: @23snakehead
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821635439838564660
THE PROBLEM OF MODERNITY AND THE REASON WHY RELIGION FAILED AND LEFTIST PSEUDOSCIENCE AND IDEOLOGY ARE THE NEW CULTS.
Most humans are cognitively simple. Very. Most cannot grasp more than one dimension of causality, and the vast majority cannot grasp even one logical negative within that one dimension. Largely humans imitate, they rarely think and reason in any sense of the term because they lack the ability to.
It’s a miracle that we survive in modernity at all.
If there is a relative monopoly of frames of reference, and that frame varies little from the physical (material), natural (cooperative), and evolutionary (genetic, cultural, institutional) laws, then the burden of reason is reduced by the vast distribution of knowledge production transportation and incentives.
The problem is that religion can do so but at very high cost of resistance to evolutionary, cultural, and institutional development – because religion on its face does and must counter these laws. So one can produce a monopoly that is trivially easy to grasp, trivially easy to practice, but also trivially easy to stagnate, produce dysgenia, and decline.
So we must produce the equivalent of a religion that is relatively easy to grasp even if it takes training, but does not diverge from the Physical and Natural, and Evolutionary Laws.
Cheers
CD
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-08 19:50:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821635104294174720
RT @spaceangelvoice: you truly have no idea just how militarily dominant the US alone is, let alone all of NATO. but despite what both the…
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-08 19:40:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821632706221883785
@ItIsHoeMath
Suggestion to add to your portfolio of wisdom:
Doing what imposes costs on others hurts everyone by either depriving the producers or disabling, creating dependency, and exaggerating the reproduction of the non-producers.
Instead, we all benefit from NOT doing things that impose costs upon others.
If enough of us live in proximity that we all benefit from not imposing costs on others we develop trustworthiness and trust.
If we develop homogenous trustworthiness and trust when living in proximity, we lower opportunity costs, and lower the risk and in doing so lower transaction costs.
If we create the informal commons of trustworthiness and trust, lowering opportunity and transaction costs, then can then use some percentage of proceeds from not doing things to one another, that we can create commons of both formal institutions, and physical infrastructure to further lower our opportunity, transaction, information, goods, and services costs.
If we further lower our costs of opportunity, transaction, information, goods and services in an environment of homogenous trust in proximity to one another, we create an advantage that attracts others who will conform to those norms and institutions which again lowers opportunity and transaction costs further and increases the division of labor decreasing the costs of more complex and diverse goods, services and information.
The lesson is that we all benefit from the prohibition on imposition of costs upon others, including the prohibition on others free riding on the production of commons that lower opportunity, transaction, and material costs.
Conversely, we all experience harm from the tolerance for imposition of costs upon others, especially those directly, or indirectly by free riding on the production of commons – including the commons of trustworthiness and trust that made all our benefits possible.
This is why we are converting from a high trust northern european population to a lower and lower and lower one – and discovering the informal, formal, and material costs that follow that decline.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @ItIsHoeMath
Source date (UTC): 2024-08-08 19:36:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821631643129434112