Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • No I think we are compatible. Men and Women evolved to specialize in the reprodu

    No I think we are compatible. Men and Women evolved to specialize in the reproductive and temporal division of sense, perception, memory, advocacy, negotiation, and cooperation in a division of cognitive and physical labor.

    We are either reciprocal – over time – or not.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 17:11:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251558998890946560

    Reply addressees: @buldursgait @DeguTanya @BepDelta @Dark_TossEX @MarfamSilva @paxchristus0 @ReadLinkola

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1251557191959613441

  • Our culture rewards status achievement by heroism at the cost of superiors, wher

    Our culture rewards status achievement by heroism at the cost of superiors, where sticking out is not generally tolerated elsewhere.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-17 02:07:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250969190875435009

    Reply addressees: @TruthRespecter @readomain @MattPirkowski @ThruTheHayes

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250952724990119949

  • THE HIERARCHY OF POSSIBILITIES PREVENTS ERROR By Lucas Cort SOVEREIGNTY – DOMINA

    THE HIERARCHY OF POSSIBILITIES PREVENTS ERROR

    By Lucas Cort

    SOVEREIGNTY – DOMINANT MALE

    The male strategy creates sovereignty IN FACT – violence and Law – establishment of action, preservation and insurance between insurers.

    FREEDOM – ALL

    Those Sovereigns then grant PERMISSION to those of lesser insurance or specializations in the division of labour to act within the limits of that permission(markets) what we call FREEDOM.

    If FREEDOM is used as the starting point without understanding the necessity for sovereignty that makes freedom possible, then men will not pay the cost of defending the sovereigns who create freedom.

    LIBERTY – ASCENDANT MALE

    The ascendant male navigates the permissible freedom with LIBERTY(agency, autonomy).

    If LIBERTY is used the starting point without understanding the necessity for the larger structures of permission and insurance to uphold that permission, the idea of liberty (autonomy) can undermine the very thing that allows it to survive through entitlement (false priors) and possible negative externalities that undermine group cohesion (think libertarianism – baiting into hazard, etc).

    REDISTRIBUTION – FEMALE

    This can be divided further into the female strategy, which has the primarily focus on empathy using social transactions to create redistribution within the group.

    If REDISTRIBUTION is used as the starting point, first entitlement devoid merit, then hyper consumption, and redistribution undermine the value of the structure that allows it to navigate, just as the ascendant male.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-16 10:22:00 UTC

  • DEFINE: CELLULAR DAMAGE —“Curt: What do you mean by “cellular damage”?”—Dani

    DEFINE: CELLULAR DAMAGE

    —“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.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-16 02:20:00 UTC

  • PEOPLE ARE *VERY* DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER by John Mark It is hard for us to im

    PEOPLE ARE *VERY* DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER

    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.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 19:47:00 UTC

  • THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE WILL RETURN TO HISTORICAL NORM – AND THAT’S NOT MONOGAMY

    THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE WILL RETURN TO HISTORICAL NORM – AND THAT’S NOT MONOGAMY

    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)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 16:45:00 UTC

  • The Choice Episode 0004 – The Dog, the Cake, and You in Three Lessons

    The Choice Episode 0004 – The Dog, the Cake, and You in Three Lessons

    https://youtu.be/RYsYe799ffg


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 16:42:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1250464500685377540

  • DEFINE POWER DISTANCE (definitions) —“Would someone please robustly define pow

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distanceQ: DEFINE POWER DISTANCE

    (definitions)

    —“Would someone please robustly define power distance?”— Micky Callahan

    Power distance refers to the relationship between those in power and the subordinates in a society where lower ranking individuals depending on the high or low power distance culture react to that authority.

    Simple checklist (Doolittle):

    1 – How many layers are between you and political decision makers.

    2 – How many people are competing for their attention?

    3 – How contradictory are the competitors demands to yours?

    4 – How how likely are political decision makers to reflect anyone’s interest other than their own?

    Links via @[1497330546:2048:Paul Bard]

    1. Power Distance

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distance

    2. Power distance Index

    http://clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/power-distance-index

    3. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstede’s_cultural_dimensions_theory?Updated Apr 15, 2020, 4:24 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 16:24:00 UTC

  • WHEN IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE, TEST FIRST FOR STUPIDITY AND EMERGENCE – NOT INTENT.

    WHEN IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE, TEST FIRST FOR STUPIDITY AND EMERGENCE – NOT INTENT.

    (be all the man you can be)

    —“I have to consciously remind myself to “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity [ignorance]” – that’s “Hanlon’s Razor”. And the similar mantra to “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by emergence”.”—Brad Chambers

    Remember, the female perceives all as in intent. The male perceives all as systems of incentives.

    Be all the man you can be. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 12:26:00 UTC

  • RELIGION AND CONSPIRACY THEORY SHARE THE SAME ERROR OF FEMININE COGNITION: IMPUT

    RELIGION AND CONSPIRACY THEORY SHARE THE SAME ERROR OF FEMININE COGNITION: IMPUTATION OF INTENT

    (possibly important)

    —“Pattern recognition isn’t the problem, it’s the “imputing conscious intent” where none exists or cannot be demonstrated.”— (Daniel and others)

    Why? Bias of brain and subsequent consciousness to think through an empathic lens rather than a systemic and material lens. The herd bias of empathy when grazing vs the pack bias of systems when hunting. The masculine brain sees systems where the feminine brain sees intentions.

    There is a place for religion and it is a necessary place for the mammal inside.

    DEBT: Where worship means demonstration of appreciation for inheritance: debt.

    – Nature worship (debt)

    – Kin and Ancestor worship (debt)

    – Gods, demigods, heroes and saints worship (debt)

    CAPITALIZATION: And training in mindfulness:

    – Action: Heroism – achievement (cost)

    – Reason: stoicism – self authoring (cost)

    – Experience: epicureanism – community building (cost)

    REWARD: And the Ritual of the Feast – building community.

    – The Gathering, The Fire, The Call (reward)

    – The Parable, The Oath, the Testimony (reward)

    – The Sacrifice, The Feast, The Thanks (reward)

    – The Celebration (festival), The Sport(competition), The Dispersal (rest) (reward)

    RULES: There are three sets of laws evident in the structure of the universe whether those laws were made by structural consequence, the design of divinity, or the hand of god.

    – The laws of nature. (physical limits)

    – The natural law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity (personal limits)

    … – With the christian law of love improving upon natural law

    – The evolutionary law of transcendence of man into gods. (political limits)

    Grow up, Man up, Shut up, Show up.

    And win.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 10:21:00 UTC