Apr 15, 2020, 4:45 PM During most of agrarian age history, when man and woman married they could divide labor of creating common property (household) so that man could have a tribe and woman a nest, and both freedom from parental control over the allocation of resources. Getting married meant freedom and sovereignty. A lot. This was true until the postwar boom. In the present age, unless a woman wants to raise replacement levels of children, children are now an amusement, and men are an unnecessary and more easily sacrificed cost. Without the need for children’s support in old age there is no incentive to have them sufficient to preserve the incentive to invest in marriage and replacement level children. Social Security was suicidal. The pill added a noose. No fault divorce created the hanging tree. We already know, of course, that women wield the ultimate veto power in the mating game. It is women who give thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any advances or proposals from men. Briffault clarifies by asserting that intimate relationships between men and women result from a calculated cost/benefit analysis by women. Will she or won’t she acquire a net gain from any relationship with the man? This does not necessarily mean monetary gain, although it might. Other types of gain might be social status, sexual compatibility, anticipated future happiness, emotional security, and the male’s capacity for fatherhood. Men are costly for a woman in attention, emotion, time, effort and reproductive opportunity – and her children take priority over him. Their value at present is largely income and status and that is decreasingly immaterial. Women are costly for men in his specialization, lower adaptivity to new groups, his cellular damage, his shorter life span, his shorter working life, and his shorter savings horizon, and his reproductive opportunity. But a woman’s care is extremely valuable to a man. He trades all these things for the care of a woman. Unless both parties stay socialized and fit, sex dissipates quickly. It isn’t clear that agrarian marriage can continue as a majority habit and it’s more likely we will continue to return to human norms of serial monogamy, treating relationships like careers, except for the upper classes that as always gain so much value from shared assets status shared oppporutnity that the economics still make sense. === (Some content in this post is from John Brennan)
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
People Are *Very* Different from Each Other
Apr 15, 2020, 7:47 PM by John Mark It is hard for us to imagine how different other people are to us. This has been the single hardest lesson for me to learn over my lifetime, I’m finally getting it and still getting more revelations about it. Even understanding the very thorough, very clear way that Curt lays out the “clusters” of humans (by personality/gender/moral instinct/moral division of labor), it is still very difficult for me to imagine actually thinking like, say, a leftist or a globalist or a “feminine-minded” person. Yet, I am confident in saying that George Soros sincerely believes he is doing the right thing in pushing for globalism & mass immigration for western nations as hard as he can. He is Jooish (feminine mind + “globalism & immigration means less likely joos will be persecuted” mindset). (Ironically, joos pushing these policies increases the likelihood of joos being persecuted, but as typical female-mind they are not introspective enough to know that.) As far as I can tell, Soros is not sitting there saying “Hahaha I am Dr. Evil!! I vill control zee vorld, just to be evil!!” He’s just acting like a typical joo. He is trying to control as much of the world as he can based on his biases and incentives. Is he – and/or others – “conspiring”? Depends on your definition of “conspiracy”. I think the point Curt is trying to make with his recent posts on this subject is that many times the masses intuit/impute intent to be evil onto powerful people who are doing things we don’t like, when in reality they are mainly being themselves (they are not like us) and acting according to their incentives (yes, often with awareness that they are “cheating” or “taking advantage”, and often genuinely believing they are right as with Soros & “true believer” leftist leaders & politicians). So Curt’s point is, “these people are largely just acting on incentives & calculating how to gain, and are getting away with it to the extent our system – and we ourselves – allow it.” So rather than focusing on imputing intent to be evil (feminine bias – similar to what leftists do when they impute evil intent onto rightwingers, cuz they are so different than us that they can’t fathom we are working toward our own incentives which are very different than theirs), let’s focus on changing the system and stopping the parasites. I don’t care how deep you go into the conspiracy rabbit hole, I care if you act with agency to stop the parasites and build/enforce a system that does not allow them to operate. I don’t care if you believe in Jesus or heaven or a pantheon of pink elephant-gods, I care if you act with agency to stop the parasites and build/enforce a system that does not sllow them to operate. And this (I’m pretty sure) is the big reason Curt gives the conspiracy-minded folks and people who are into certain religions, a hard time in some ways – because feminine-minded reactions/thinking tends to rob people of agency. It tends to rob them of the mindset necessary to build and enforce a system that crushes parasites into dust. Honestly, is anyone holding their breath for Christians or the “primary focus on conspiracies” crowd to lead and be the primary drivers of the revolution and salvation of America and the West? (There are many exceptions of course including possibly Alex Jones who seems to have a lot of balls to do what he’s done.) One challenge we have on the grassroots Right is that we have groups that try to demand that everyone else on the Right “speak their language” or they show intolerance.
- Many Christians say “If you’re not Christian you’re not good enough.” (While Christian pastors/priests refuse to say what is necessary to save the West. Why would we follow or submit to them? It’s ludicrous. Don’t worry, Christians don’t follow through on this threat – 80% of evangelicals voted for Trump. They’ll always end up following the best leaders they can get which rarely come from their own ranks.)
The “alt-right” says “Talk about joos in every conversation/video, and tell everyone how Hitler was right, and provide me a sentimental religion around the wonderfulness of the white race, or you’re not good enough.”
Many conspiracy-focused folks say “If you don’t believe in conspiracies to the extent I do, you’re not good enough.”
The problem is, none of these groups are providing a workable solution. We are, but because we don’t woo them in “their language” – because that would require catering to agency-reducing and/or effectiveness-reducing tendencies – their initial reaction is sometimes to reject us. No matter. High-agency men will always carry the day for the simple reason that no one else acts or solves problems. The low-agency people will always end up following the high-agency people. The challenge in getting “buy-in” to what we are proposing is that it removes all excuses. It demands agency. Proposing and understanding solutions and acting to make them happen is much harder and riskier than complaining & wishing everyone would “speak your language”. Thus, the high-agency people love what we’re doing. Often instantly, sometimes after a bit of learning. “At last, a solution I can act with agency toward!” (Something worth my agency’s efforts.) The low-agency people look for excuses to keep their excuses. We are building an army of high-agency men. (And some high-agency women too.) Join the army, or get out of our way.
-
People Are *Very* Different from Each Other
Apr 15, 2020, 7:47 PM by John Mark It is hard for us to imagine how different other people are to us. This has been the single hardest lesson for me to learn over my lifetime, I’m finally getting it and still getting more revelations about it. Even understanding the very thorough, very clear way that Curt lays out the “clusters” of humans (by personality/gender/moral instinct/moral division of labor), it is still very difficult for me to imagine actually thinking like, say, a leftist or a globalist or a “feminine-minded” person. Yet, I am confident in saying that George Soros sincerely believes he is doing the right thing in pushing for globalism & mass immigration for western nations as hard as he can. He is Jooish (feminine mind + “globalism & immigration means less likely joos will be persecuted” mindset). (Ironically, joos pushing these policies increases the likelihood of joos being persecuted, but as typical female-mind they are not introspective enough to know that.) As far as I can tell, Soros is not sitting there saying “Hahaha I am Dr. Evil!! I vill control zee vorld, just to be evil!!” He’s just acting like a typical joo. He is trying to control as much of the world as he can based on his biases and incentives. Is he – and/or others – “conspiring”? Depends on your definition of “conspiracy”. I think the point Curt is trying to make with his recent posts on this subject is that many times the masses intuit/impute intent to be evil onto powerful people who are doing things we don’t like, when in reality they are mainly being themselves (they are not like us) and acting according to their incentives (yes, often with awareness that they are “cheating” or “taking advantage”, and often genuinely believing they are right as with Soros & “true believer” leftist leaders & politicians). So Curt’s point is, “these people are largely just acting on incentives & calculating how to gain, and are getting away with it to the extent our system – and we ourselves – allow it.” So rather than focusing on imputing intent to be evil (feminine bias – similar to what leftists do when they impute evil intent onto rightwingers, cuz they are so different than us that they can’t fathom we are working toward our own incentives which are very different than theirs), let’s focus on changing the system and stopping the parasites. I don’t care how deep you go into the conspiracy rabbit hole, I care if you act with agency to stop the parasites and build/enforce a system that does not allow them to operate. I don’t care if you believe in Jesus or heaven or a pantheon of pink elephant-gods, I care if you act with agency to stop the parasites and build/enforce a system that does not sllow them to operate. And this (I’m pretty sure) is the big reason Curt gives the conspiracy-minded folks and people who are into certain religions, a hard time in some ways – because feminine-minded reactions/thinking tends to rob people of agency. It tends to rob them of the mindset necessary to build and enforce a system that crushes parasites into dust. Honestly, is anyone holding their breath for Christians or the “primary focus on conspiracies” crowd to lead and be the primary drivers of the revolution and salvation of America and the West? (There are many exceptions of course including possibly Alex Jones who seems to have a lot of balls to do what he’s done.) One challenge we have on the grassroots Right is that we have groups that try to demand that everyone else on the Right “speak their language” or they show intolerance.
- Many Christians say “If you’re not Christian you’re not good enough.” (While Christian pastors/priests refuse to say what is necessary to save the West. Why would we follow or submit to them? It’s ludicrous. Don’t worry, Christians don’t follow through on this threat – 80% of evangelicals voted for Trump. They’ll always end up following the best leaders they can get which rarely come from their own ranks.)
The “alt-right” says “Talk about joos in every conversation/video, and tell everyone how Hitler was right, and provide me a sentimental religion around the wonderfulness of the white race, or you’re not good enough.”
Many conspiracy-focused folks say “If you don’t believe in conspiracies to the extent I do, you’re not good enough.”
The problem is, none of these groups are providing a workable solution. We are, but because we don’t woo them in “their language” – because that would require catering to agency-reducing and/or effectiveness-reducing tendencies – their initial reaction is sometimes to reject us. No matter. High-agency men will always carry the day for the simple reason that no one else acts or solves problems. The low-agency people will always end up following the high-agency people. The challenge in getting “buy-in” to what we are proposing is that it removes all excuses. It demands agency. Proposing and understanding solutions and acting to make them happen is much harder and riskier than complaining & wishing everyone would “speak your language”. Thus, the high-agency people love what we’re doing. Often instantly, sometimes after a bit of learning. “At last, a solution I can act with agency toward!” (Something worth my agency’s efforts.) The low-agency people look for excuses to keep their excuses. We are building an army of high-agency men. (And some high-agency women too.) Join the army, or get out of our way.
-
Define: Cellular Damage
Apr 16, 2020, 2:20 AM
—“Curt: What do you mean by “cellular damage”?”—Daniel Roland Anderson
XX vs XY. Two chances of cellular correction vs one. This is why men live shorter lives by about ten percent. We accumulate cellular damage and we take on the high risk work in the world. When childbirth was risky the tradeoff existed. Now it doesn’t.
-
Define: Cellular Damage
Apr 16, 2020, 2:20 AM
—“Curt: What do you mean by “cellular damage”?”—Daniel Roland Anderson
XX vs XY. Two chances of cellular correction vs one. This is why men live shorter lives by about ten percent. We accumulate cellular damage and we take on the high risk work in the world. When childbirth was risky the tradeoff existed. Now it doesn’t.
-
I wonder why anyone in america gets married
Apr 16, 2020, 7:14 PM ( When I listen to other couples talk I wonder why anyone in america gets married. What a bunch of ignorant, spoiled, self-indulgent, twits leading meaningless hamster-wheel lives, of obesity, virtue signaling, and social dysfunction from a failure to compete enough to learn to compromise. We don’t need man caves. We gotta build barracks for men so we can get away from the nests of harpies, and the harpies don’t have to deal with mansplaining they can’t understand anyway. It’s complete madness. I need to go back to eastern europe – western civ has gone mad. I can sit with a ukrainian woman in a cafe all day long with drinks and food, holding hands, chatting with friends, frittering time away on our phones, and sharing hugs and giggles and enjoying life like real human beings. America is full of addicts terrified of missing out on the next consumption signal, living in the world’s largest most elaborately decorated prison cells of their own making. These people are fking nuts. Really. )
-
Social Construction Reduction of Cognitive Load
Apr 21, 2020, 11:48 AM —“Given that it takes a substantial degree of general knowledge to comprehend how “social constructions ” exist largely as a reflection (expression) of biology (and the subsequent distributions that occur when variation of biology interact), social construction theory alleviates the cognitive load required. It is sociological fast food – the cheap and easy fix for ignorance…. you get what you pay for…”—Bill Joslin —“(it’s cultural beer goggles)”— Brandon Hayes
-
Social Construction Reduction of Cognitive Load
Apr 21, 2020, 11:48 AM —“Given that it takes a substantial degree of general knowledge to comprehend how “social constructions ” exist largely as a reflection (expression) of biology (and the subsequent distributions that occur when variation of biology interact), social construction theory alleviates the cognitive load required. It is sociological fast food – the cheap and easy fix for ignorance…. you get what you pay for…”—Bill Joslin —“(it’s cultural beer goggles)”— Brandon Hayes
-
The False Promise
Apr 18, 2020, 3:43 PM
—“That’s what it always comes down to, freedom from consequences. The false promise of freedom from consequences is baiting into hazard as ignoring consequences must necessarily result in destruction.”—Andrew M Gilmour
—“Marxism is the tooth fairy of political beliefs. You can’t make a credible claim to being an adult and still believe in that nonsense.”–Noah J Revoy
—“Surplus value cannot exist. It’s the greatest lie to ever ensnare humans.”—Andrew M Gilmour
—“Even if something like surplus value hypothetically could exist, I think the more important point is that there is no way of verifying or falsifying such a claim. He just insists that it does exist and that it can be calculated in terms of socially necessary labor time per hour. He’s just describing the attributes of a mythical tooth fairy without providing any way of verifying it.”—Predmetsky Rosenborg
The question is this, why should I, having collected the savings fo dozens of families, invest in more than one companies, when only one will turn a profit, without expecting a return from the one company, that will profit enough to invest in any company, despite all but one losing money?
Or more differently, given that all industrial capitalization, organization, marketing, sales, production, and receipt of payment is speculative, would the common laborers equally risk their income by investing labor and then waiting to see if the income would be returned?
-
The False Promise
Apr 18, 2020, 3:43 PM
—“That’s what it always comes down to, freedom from consequences. The false promise of freedom from consequences is baiting into hazard as ignoring consequences must necessarily result in destruction.”—Andrew M Gilmour
—“Marxism is the tooth fairy of political beliefs. You can’t make a credible claim to being an adult and still believe in that nonsense.”–Noah J Revoy
—“Surplus value cannot exist. It’s the greatest lie to ever ensnare humans.”—Andrew M Gilmour
—“Even if something like surplus value hypothetically could exist, I think the more important point is that there is no way of verifying or falsifying such a claim. He just insists that it does exist and that it can be calculated in terms of socially necessary labor time per hour. He’s just describing the attributes of a mythical tooth fairy without providing any way of verifying it.”—Predmetsky Rosenborg
The question is this, why should I, having collected the savings fo dozens of families, invest in more than one companies, when only one will turn a profit, without expecting a return from the one company, that will profit enough to invest in any company, despite all but one losing money?
Or more differently, given that all industrial capitalization, organization, marketing, sales, production, and receipt of payment is speculative, would the common laborers equally risk their income by investing labor and then waiting to see if the income would be returned?