The brain functions by a market for attention. Differences in brain structure especially between genders, provide increases or decreases in attention achievable by different regions, with… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=491857614744467&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 15:15:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187387197403607041
THE ECONOMICS OF DATING
AFAIK, both women and men want to obtain a premium, but a premium they can afford (not lose their investment); Women want to insure they bias the attention in the… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=491841378079424&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 14:47:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187379977861435392
So, women seek an equilibrium under which they increase access to in-group social opportunity, have the resources to do so, but are able to control the source of resources, through control of attention. Men with money monopolize attention, and increase women’s competition.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 14:41:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187378497934761987
Reply addressees: @DegenRolf
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187377992516984833
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@DegenRolf AFAIK, both women and men want to obtain a premium, but a premium they can afford (not lose their investment); Women want to insure they bias the attention in the relationship, or that through a relationship they increase their attention. Attention = Access to social opportunity.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1187377992516984833
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@DegenRolf AFAIK, both women and men want to obtain a premium, but a premium they can afford (not lose their investment); Women want to insure they bias the attention in the relationship, or that through a relationship they increase their attention. Attention = Access to social opportunity.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1187377992516984833
AFAIK, both women and men want to obtain a premium, but a premium they can afford (not lose their investment); Women want to insure they bias the attention in the relationship, or that through a relationship they increase their attention. Attention = Access to social opportunity.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 14:39:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187377992516984833
Reply addressees: @DegenRolf
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187233189569421312
IN REPLY TO:
@DegenRolf
Do women find wealthy men more attractive in a dating context? Not if they come straight out with their bank account. https://t.co/KzOp9GO7Uo https://t.co/UlMPr43Vhf
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187233189569421312
Teaching is a talent, with a tiny bit of craftsmanship. You can’t teach a talent. You’ve got the talent or you don’t. Too many don’t.
Teaching consists almost entirely of the Grammars (means of comparing, reasoning, calculating with different smantics (terms) and operators (operations) in complete sentences (transactions),) and history (evidence, data).
Answering synthetic questions when a teaching requires life experience, and knowledge of multiple grammars, and human history. Ergo, the only people suitable for answering questions are grandparents.
The only defense against undermining intergenerational transfer of debt obligations (culture) is teachers who are grandparents.
I wouldn’t let anyone teach anything above fourth grade that hadn’t had life experience in productive endeavors (no govt, ppl for ex.). Too much stupid out there. Too much ignorant out there. Too much GSRRM out there.
THere is no reason we don’t teach mindfulness, ethics, the law, accounting, and micro economics, and social economy, history, and geogrpahy other than to undermine our civilizatoin by producing ignorant post-religoius
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 12:01:00 UTC
DIFFERENCES IN GENDER NEUTRAL MEASUREMENT
Training, bias, intuition, impulse, and predisposition are a spectrum of very different things, yet most of the gender-neutral literature measures the results of training not disposition, impulse, and bias. Why? Measurements evolved for measurement of men trained to fulfill roles in a hierarchical distribution.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 11:16:00 UTC
GENDER AND THE BRAIN AS A MARKET FOR ATTENTION
The brain functions by a market for attention. Differences in brain structure especially between genders, provide increases or decreases in attention achievable by different regions, with urgent attention provided by fears, and long term attention provided by incentives. Attention is easier for men because we compartmentalize our brains with less interaction, and harder for women because their brains are more integrated. Worse, the ability to suppress impulse from the frontal region and back to the hippocampal region and own to the thalamus varies by individual regardless of gender. Worse, men are more dominant and less agreeable by a bit, and as such are more likely to express physical urgencies, where women verbal urgencies.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 11:15:00 UTC
THE ECONOMICS OF DATING
AFAIK, both women and men want to obtain a premium, but a premium they can afford (not lose their investment); Women want to insure they attract the majority of attention in the relationship (are consumers of attention), or that through a relationship they increase their attention. Attention provides discounts on access to social opportunity – particularly for status signaling and verbal coercion.
So, women seek an equilibrium under which they increase access to in-group social opportunity, have the resources to do so, but are able to control the source of resources, through control of attention. Men with money garner attention, put men in an advantageous position in relation to the woman, and increase women’s competition.
Women want to buy with attention, words, and affection (low cost). Men want to buy with resources (high cost). The problem is women’s attention is scarce, and desirable, so it’s costly.
There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy that is not readily expressible in economic terms – emotions and intuitions are nothing more than evolution providing us with information on how to acquire some sort of resource discounting our costs.
Any theory in metaphysics, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy must be constructable from rational incentives to acquire some sort of discount or premium, or the theory is false. It’s no different from any other of the logics: all logic is falsificationary.
The principle problem facing the transformation of linguistic (metaphysical), psychological,social, legal, political, economic, and military disciplines is a failure to adopt the full accounting in those disciplines using economic equilibration = entropy in the physical sciences.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 10:46:00 UTC
It’s genius actually. It’s describing the female conflcit strategy of undermining truth plus the abrahamic sophism of false promise, baiting in to hazard, profiting from that hazard, and defending it with pilpul, critique, & pretense of innocence under cover of voluntary choice.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 04:17:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187221527982460928
Reply addressees: @meta_slayer @RenegadePlayboy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187127639443673088
IN REPLY TO:
@meta_slayer
@RenegadePlayboy fucking madness…
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187127639443673088
“GSRRM” RESPONSE
—“f–cking madness…”—@meta_slayer
It’s genius actually. It’s describing the female conflcit strategy of undermining truth plus the abrahamic sophism of false promise, baiting in to hazard, profiting from that hazard, and defending it with pilpul, critique, & pretense of innocence under cover of voluntary choice.
I don’t make errors. Ever. It’s my job not to.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 00:19:00 UTC