RK: I don’t really want to push back on this post because besides being true, it’s serving a good purpose. But… the open question is “composition vs expression”: whether the coincidence of phenotypic traits(neoteny) and class traits (load) are related. The baby-crib test works.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 20:36:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229142606644424705
Reply addressees: @gnxp_posts
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1228857921175355392
So go read bio-ethics yourself. Not propaganda. Not marxist, feminist, postmodernist pseudoscience and sophistry.
What is the human cost of reversing thousands of years of soft eugenics by taxation and credit expansion in the middle to profit the top and expand the bottom?
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 17:25:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229094516377997312
Reply addressees: @drjulie_b
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229094235783258113
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@drjulie_b We have lost a full standard deviation of intelligence above the Hajnal Line in the past 150 years due to reversal. We’re just about to cross the line of 97 in the USA, and evidence is that 95 and 93 are cliff effects that are unrecoverable. That’s before personality trait diffs.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1229094235783258113
We have lost a full standard deviation of intelligence above the Hajnal Line in the past 150 years due to reversal. We’re just about to cross the line of 97 in the USA, and evidence is that 95 and 93 are cliff effects that are unrecoverable. That’s before personality trait diffs.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 17:24:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229094235783258113
Reply addressees: @drjulie_b
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1228972722061021184
The difference between the races, subraces, and ethnicities is due entirely to neoteny (geographic selection) and class distribution (institutional, economic, cultural selection), and the consequential difference in standards of development, living, institutions is GENETIC.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 15:24:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229064033548034048
Reply addressees: @profdanhicks
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229063408022106113
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@profdanhicks That’s simply ignorant and false, or dishonest. European and Sinic civilizations have practiced soft eugenics for thousands of years, aggressively since 700, very aggressively from 1200 to 1900, and the result was rather obvious when compared to those who practiced dysgenics.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1229063408022106113
YES EUGENICS WORKS. PERIOD. SO DO MANY THINGS WE DON”T DO.
—“No he’s not, he’s offering support to eugenics. It’s not scientifically, ethically, or socially valid AT ALL. Go read some bioethics.”—Dr Julie Blommaert @drjulie_b
Julie you are a typical product of the feminist postmodern pseudoscience movement.
(a) Eugenics would work.
(b) So would many other things we don’t do. Even genocide works – it’s the most effective historical means of evolutionary competition.
We don’t do it.
SO STOP LYING.
We have lost a full standard deviation of intelligence above the Hajnal Line in the past 150 years due to reversal. We’re just about to cross the line of 97 in the USA, and evidence is that 95 and 93 are cliff effects that are unrecoverable. That’s before personality trait diffs.
So go read bio-ethics yourself. Not propaganda. Not marxist, feminist, postmodernist pseudoscience and sophistry.
What is the human cost of reversing thousands of years of soft eugenics by taxation and credit expansion in the middle to profit the top and expand the bottom?
Economics (in the Beckerian tradition) should be required to get any degree and any pretense of conception of what ‘ethics’ means.
People like you are a cancer for mankind.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 12:28:00 UTC
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/biologists-wsj-only-two-sexes-male-and-female-there-no-sex-spectrum?fbclid=IwAR2oA7JRn2db9DyI5Hkjlv3UcO3NZgqdJxr2CIZ7wMhC61zTu_OkkCARw2A#utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cns&utm_campaign=b-WSJ2BiologistsSayOnly2Sexesby @[100042296131950:2048:Predmetsky Rosenborg]
There is atypical variation in unusual cases like Klinefelter’s syndrome and other chromosomal abnormalities, but these are rare, and they rarely impact phenotypic presentation significantly, and they are objective rather than having anything to do with subjective “identification”
===
CD: the constitution states that there are only two sexes. It also states the difference between marriage (insured for the production of children) and partnership (personal consumption).Updated Feb 15, 2020, 8:13 AM
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-15 08:13:00 UTC
THE LIMITS OF P IN MATE RELATIONSHIPS
—“I’ve falling in love with the phrase, “Baiting into hazard”. I use it on my wife almost daily. She looks at me funny. That’s ok, she can’t help it. It’s genetic.”—@EricLiford
[W]omen function by seduction of men by sex and affection; women by attention, cooperation, alliance, and insurance; and children by affection, information, care taking, dependency, and protection. So trying to get women to stop using seduction will just masculinize them and lose all their value as the central unit of family and social cooperation. The question isn’t whether women are seducing you, but whether the promise offered by their seduction is true. Just don’t lie to each other. It’s not complicated. You will find both men and women who make false promises in order to obtain discounts on acquisition of experience, information, cooperation, consumption, or capital. Men have only loyalty and strength women have only devotion and seduction. Let women be women. Encourage them to be women. The more seduction in the world the more wonderful it is. The only question is whether it’s a false promise or a truthful reciprocal, warrantied offer of exchange.
THE LIMITS OF P IN MATE RELATIONSHIPS
—“I’ve falling in love with the phrase, “Baiting into hazard”. I use it on my wife almost daily. She looks at me funny. That’s ok, she can’t help it. It’s genetic.”—@EricLiford
[W]omen function by seduction of men by sex and affection; women by attention, cooperation, alliance, and insurance; and children by affection, information, care taking, dependency, and protection. So trying to get women to stop using seduction will just masculinize them and lose all their value as the central unit of family and social cooperation. The question isn’t whether women are seducing you, but whether the promise offered by their seduction is true. Just don’t lie to each other. It’s not complicated. You will find both men and women who make false promises in order to obtain discounts on acquisition of experience, information, cooperation, consumption, or capital. Men have only loyalty and strength women have only devotion and seduction. Let women be women. Encourage them to be women. The more seduction in the world the more wonderful it is. The only question is whether it’s a false promise or a truthful reciprocal, warrantied offer of exchange.
No More Woo Woo in Cognitive Science Please https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/14/no-more-woo-woo-in-cognitive-science-please/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-14 15:43:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1228343997900435456
Feb 12, 2020, 2:47 PM
—-“A widespread misconception in much of psychology holds that as vertebrate animals evolved, ‘newer’ brain structures were added over existing ‘older’ brain structures” Your Brain Is Not an Onion with a Tiny Reptile Inside A widespread misconception in much of psychology holds that (1) as vertebrate animals evolved, “newer” brain structures were added over existing “older” brain structures and (2) these newer,….. “All vertebrates possess the same basic brain—and forebrain—regions. … [None] are evolutionarily newer in some mammals than others. … even the prefrontal cortex, a region associated with reason and action planning, is not a uniquely human structure.”— Robin Hanson @robinhanson
[A] statement without meaning – there’s only one cell type in the nervous system, three subtypes, but almost countless variation that all functional regions in the brain evolved from. So what? Does that mean we can’t demarcate dramatic evolutionary leaps in function by organism? To say that a fish is sentient and aware is true. To say it is conscious is to demand we define the spectrum of predictive models capable for the organism, and its ability to react vs choose vs reason vs calculate transformations of state vs calculate cooperation. So if the point is to clarify that the brain is just a collection of similar cells in various forms of organization and that for all intents and purposes our brain is an outgrowth of our consciousness (modeling of our body and movement in space) yes. To equate sentience (feeling of changes in state), and awareness (of change in state of environment) and semi-consciousness (prediction of future states and possible reactions), consciousness (prediction of future permutations of state), to transformations of state is a leap. If the question is ‘who is the observer’ (which I suspect is the origin of most problems in philosophy and cognitive science) it’s memory of the last few memories recursively processed as a stream of changes in model in the hippocampal region. Consciousness is a verb not a noun. Why do I care? No more woo woo in cognitive science please. If you can’t pass the mirror test, the gesture test, sympathy test (cooperation), demonstrate natural operational grammar (language), and create multi-part tools, or enter into agreement (consent) then you’re far behind. The difference between the engine of a 3d video game and the human brain turns out to be terrifyingly small. We just do everything in massive parallel and at a much lower voltage and current because of it, and we do the prediction as well as the construction.