RT @curtdoolittle: @JamesMJohnson4 @AutistocratMS @JonHaidt Well authority and hierarchy are in fact tests of LOYALTY (over-time, material,…
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-17 21:46:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813691716148568108
Well authority and hierarchy are in fact tests of LOYALTY (over-time, material, risk) whereas the left uses test of DEVOTION (in-time, social, no risk). This is a primary sex difference in condition you usually seek in r-k or herd-pack discussions, which are analogies but not causal.
As for science, the left does not use science in moral questions any more than the right does in religious questions. The fact that the right uses the left’s technique to defend religious question is one of the reason the right fails.
I suppose one of the issues here is that y’all are stopping at haid’s table/graph without following down to our work on sex differences in cognition and valuation.
Or the first principles of those sex difference.
So is your desire to falsify Haidt because he isn’t precise enough, or is your desire to prevent people from misusing haidt’s work, or is it your desire to demonize the opposition by reframing the moral biases to suit your interests, or as in my case are you trying to show that his work, while imprecise, is accessible, and clearly reflects OUR research on sex differences in cognition, valuation, moral demand, and political preference?
CD
Reply addressees: @JamesMJohnson4 @AutistocratMS @JonHaidt
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-17 21:46:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813691691314077696
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813689796289769919
Do we get to choose maritime law? Why even mention it? What is the difference between national, commercial, maritime, and international law?
“ways of thinking” don’t change anything. Only incentives.
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-17 21:37:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813689623958405306
Reply addressees: @cryptohodler16 @Lughedd
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813627747589062967
RT @curtdoolittle: @AutistocratMS @TabbyTeamster @SankohaProjekt @OGRolandRat @whatifalthist This is how it’s playing out. And that’s ok. T…
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-17 21:36:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813689215760400818
This is how it’s playing out. And that’s ok. The more ‘surface of the triangle’ we collect as audiences the better.
However, if we fragment then we fall into the same trap as the rest of the right. Instead of unifying the right and extending into the center left, we will be yet…
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-17 21:36:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813689200665092106
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813668538542092635
–“The Genie is out of the bottle.”–
That’s an opinion, one that allows you the least effort, and presumes voting has any say in the matter. Assimilation does not happen except with near neighbors.
Two intentional groups intentionally seek NOT to assimilate. one heterogenous group is sufficiently large in certain regions that they have no incentive to. One group seeks assimilation but is not capable of equal economic productivity and is a mandatory lower class. The other group has given up on assimilation and has already formed a permanent underclass.
If, you live under the illusions that people are equal, or that groups are equal, or have the capacity to be, or that they can continue integration into the most psychologically and emotionally demanding civilization, and that developed civilizations and countries can tolerate heterogeneity and still maintain their quality of life, or that heterogeneous populations can preserve participatory government and rule of law, they you don’t know the science, only christian dogma and marxist sedition. 🙁
Reply addressees: @3NaHalfBrownMen @eyeslasho
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-17 21:33:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813688445434204160
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813604185503592812
–“Is organized violence the only way to achieve this reversal [of the conquest of the USA]?”–
Given the accumulated malincentives of the postwar Credentialist takeover of the academy and state, as well as their dependence upon the clientele that succeeded in the takeover of the financial sector, academy, and media, there are at least three remaining options in the field of possibilities.
The first is dependent on random external forces producing enough disruption. This is certain to occur, with the best predictions giving us about six to eight years. But depending upon it consists of ‘handing our fate over to chance’.
The second is dependent upon the willingness of the court to see completion of its attempts at reversing postwar lawfare the bypassed the people and the legislatures.
In the absence of a monarchy as a judge of last resort (what served the founders), then as the third option, we have only then the threat of believable violence to achieve the reversal.
This would mean first, repeating the actions of the founders with a common law suit against the state (letters, declaration, constitutional reforms), then repeating the same processes as the civil rights era, in which the threat of escalation would provide justification for the reorganization of the government, financial sector, economy, policy, code, and of course fixing the six to eight holes in the constitution through which the ‘march through the institutions of cultural production’ by the left was intentionally prosecuted in an attempt to destroy the modern world as it did the christian destruction of the ancient world.
The escalation would be, not a repetition of the american civil war, or the french revolution, but one closer to syria and the arab spring on one hand and the re-conquest of spain on the other. And while I have worked rather extensively on both scenarios, and while I have no doubt ‘conservative america’ would win – it would come at a cost we, and those in govt, should seek to avoid by overturning the intentional destruction of civilization by the left, and the rather silly people who easily fall victim to the seductions of the left as their ancestors did to the abrahamic religions that created an dark age of ignorance superstition poverty starvation disease and suffering.
Cheers
CD
Reply addressees: @i63556 @eyeslasho
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-17 21:26:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813686628206223360
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813610458664038908
You could just ask me to take it down.
And let down your fans by doing so.
You do have fans you know. 😉
Me included. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-17 21:10:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813682654862360938
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813666644474179745
If so then explain. If you mean that he treated the left too optimistically, I would say he did the same of the right – but this behavior is in tradition of university publication and especially in psychology (its advice).
We work in a much more rigorous discipline that requires full accountability by use of behavioral econ and jurisprudence (its decidability).
I don’t generally expect university intellectuals to satisfy the demand for jurisprudence as we do.
So, as long as they aren’t outright attempting deception or social construction and to obscure, conflate, or inflate (use Abrahamic-Marxist Critique) then I make use of the insight, and correct for the greater demands of jurisprudence that they are unaware of, can’t or won’t.
The academy is as bound by incentives, selection bias, market demands of academies as businesses, the consequences of adding women to the student and professorial bodies, and the ‘march through the institutions of cultural production’, as was the church – and perhaps worse.
Does that mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater?
In Haidt’s case his measurement of morality is no more accurate than the Big5/6 personality, and certainly less so than the IQ scale before dumbing it down, and dumbing education down, to equilibrate the measures of the sexes.
That does not mean that his moral foundations cannot be ‘corrected’ and reframed as we have as capital bias, nor subsequently reframed by neuroscience.
We have done more, yes, but he has REACHED more people than we have.
Because for all the NEED the people have for jurisprudence, they only WANT advice.
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @JonHaidt
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-17 21:08:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813682273268752384
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813669589739524494
Do the votes reflect men’s belief women aren’t responsible for their foolish behavior? A man might at least have the confidence that he can handle himself. Yet, a woman only foolish ignorance and magical thinking. So I would expect the logical answer to reflect men’s…
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-17 20:56:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813679263322914861
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813664902634143766