(FB 1550907247 Timestamp) “WHAT DOES GSRM (or GSRRM, or RRGSM ) STAND FOR?” (core) —“You mention GSRM all the time, what does it stand for?”– The Female (herd) competitive strategy by circumventing argument by undermining, poisoning the well, and reputation destruction by use of (G)ossiping (S)haming, (R)allying, (R)idicule, (M)oralizing, and solving for face or consent — Versus the Male (pack) strategy by factual argument solving for truth regardless of face or consent. In other words female “feels” of approval or rejection vs male “reals” of truth of falsehood. Men generally make an argument and let the argument do it work. We bear the shame ourselves. We use shaming if necessary in response to GSRM. Whereas the feminine cognitive strategy is to rely entirely on GSRM as a means of denying or suppressing the argument rather than refuting it. In western history GSRM was largely illegal or punishable by direct violence between men. And laws against “scolds” -women’s gossiping and undermining – were enforced to keep the peace. During the democratic and marxist and postmodern movements as women demanded political power, they undermined these laws of the duel, libel, slander, and scolding, under the pretense of free speech – rather than free truthful factual speech (testimony). Marxism, Postmodernism, and feminism consist largely of sophism pseudoscience and denialism defended by GSRM. GSRM, like outright denial, is one of the means of dishonesty that avoids argument, whereas dishonestly constructing argumentative deception is done by Loading Framing Obscuring Cherry Picking, Fictionalizing, Sophisms, and the Fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience. This is why the abrahamic (jewish in particular, or semitic in general) means of countering greco-roman-european argument by using false promise, baiting into hazard, pilpul (sophism), and critique (undermining) is so effective: it is how our females talk to us, and because of our high trust, we are either genetically or culturally vulnerable to it – where other lower trust people are not. And we are easily undermined politically and academically because our females naturally find greater ‘affinity’ with semitic non-argument (religion, postmodernism, feminism, denialism) than with european reason science truth testimony. Male European – Truth over Face, Regardless of cost. Male everywhere else – some degree of face over truth. Female everywhere – nearly universal face over truth. Yet it is truth over face that is the reason for the ‘western miracle’ – why the rest is so different from the rest. Hence why christians are the vulnerability of western civilization: their religion was developed to obtain the attention of women, and to appeal to GSRM. The religion is stated and argued with false promise(‘salvation’), baiting into hazard (cultural vulnerability to conquest), using pilpul (excuse making) and critique (straw manning), and the fictionalism of supernaturalism. Judaism to undermine, Christanity to weaken, and islam to destroy. The middle east uses the female reproductive strategy and the far east and far west use the male, with the far east using face over truth to defend hierarchy and the west using truth before face to defend the market of the peerage. And the middle east today just as in the age of the greeks, just lying and shaming all truth without end. The world is not complicated. It is our lies that make it seem so. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550842386 Timestamp) DOMESTICATION BY EXTERMINATION OF ALPHAS by Skye Stewart –“Curt are you in agreement with Wrangmanâs general thesis as explored in this essay?”– —âA decades-long, painstaking experiment by two Russian geneticists working in Siberia showed that reduced brain size, thinner bones, and all of the other markers of domestication syndrome are merely incidental byproducts of a primary adaptation: reduced reactive aggression. In organisms selecting against such aggression, the migration of neural-crest cellsâa special kind of cell that carries developmental instructions throughout the embryo and fetusâis delayed, resulting in smaller bodies, smaller brains, hormonal changes, and the rest. âStudies have been fairly clear on this. What has been unclear is why human communities selected against reactive aggression. For Wrangham, the answer is that group life requires a minimum of stability. No trait is more disruptive than reactive aggression, which fuels such behaviors as quests for dominance and demands for submission; arrogance, bullying, and random violence; and the monopolizing of food and females. That is a behavioral profile of the alpha male, the arch-reactive aggressor. Communities must either endure such pests or eliminate them. Once humans could communicate (the origin of language canât be further narrowed down than three hundred thousand to five hundred thousand years ago, but empathy or âshared intentionalityâ appears to be independent of language and might be sufficient for communication), the die was cast. The origin of domestication, Wrangham proposes, was the group execution of alpha males. Civilization is founded on capital punishmentâor, to give it its anthropological name, âcoalitionary proactive aggression.ââ— —RESPONSE— Exactly. I quote this all the time, and it’s pretty well thought through in the literature. I mean, it’s the dominant theory. Which is why I use it. “Once we had spears, the alpha was doomed” The related argument FYI, is that language was invented to rally spear carriers against alpha males, and this is where female GSRRM comes from: undermining all power in order to preserve her freedom of choice in reproduction. Women don’t know they’re destructive. They do it out of instinct. So the problem is CONSTRAINING the destructive power of women thru undermining, JUST AS MUCH as constraining the coercive power of dominant males. (Note: someone else mentioned that this theory is from Christopher Boehm of Jane Goodall’s clan. I can’t remember off the top of my head, but that would make sense.)
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1550820842 Timestamp) NOTE: When we speak of alphas we are applying a aterm from the study of apes to humans. The definition is of apes and of humans by analogy. human males have dominated reproduction periodically, but with the evolution of weapons (tools) it became possible to redistribute reproduction. With agrarian property even more so. With modernity less so. Ergo dont overthink the analogy.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550907247 Timestamp) “WHAT DOES GSRM (or GSRRM, or RRGSM ) STAND FOR?” (core) —“You mention GSRM all the time, what does it stand for?”– The Female (herd) competitive strategy by circumventing argument by undermining, poisoning the well, and reputation destruction by use of (G)ossiping (S)haming, (R)allying, (R)idicule, (M)oralizing, and solving for face or consent — Versus the Male (pack) strategy by factual argument solving for truth regardless of face or consent. In other words female “feels” of approval or rejection vs male “reals” of truth of falsehood. Men generally make an argument and let the argument do it work. We bear the shame ourselves. We use shaming if necessary in response to GSRM. Whereas the feminine cognitive strategy is to rely entirely on GSRM as a means of denying or suppressing the argument rather than refuting it. In western history GSRM was largely illegal or punishable by direct violence between men. And laws against “scolds” -women’s gossiping and undermining – were enforced to keep the peace. During the democratic and marxist and postmodern movements as women demanded political power, they undermined these laws of the duel, libel, slander, and scolding, under the pretense of free speech – rather than free truthful factual speech (testimony). Marxism, Postmodernism, and feminism consist largely of sophism pseudoscience and denialism defended by GSRM. GSRM, like outright denial, is one of the means of dishonesty that avoids argument, whereas dishonestly constructing argumentative deception is done by Loading Framing Obscuring Cherry Picking, Fictionalizing, Sophisms, and the Fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience. This is why the abrahamic (jewish in particular, or semitic in general) means of countering greco-roman-european argument by using false promise, baiting into hazard, pilpul (sophism), and critique (undermining) is so effective: it is how our females talk to us, and because of our high trust, we are either genetically or culturally vulnerable to it – where other lower trust people are not. And we are easily undermined politically and academically because our females naturally find greater ‘affinity’ with semitic non-argument (religion, postmodernism, feminism, denialism) than with european reason science truth testimony. Male European – Truth over Face, Regardless of cost. Male everywhere else – some degree of face over truth. Female everywhere – nearly universal face over truth. Yet it is truth over face that is the reason for the ‘western miracle’ – why the rest is so different from the rest. Hence why christians are the vulnerability of western civilization: their religion was developed to obtain the attention of women, and to appeal to GSRM. The religion is stated and argued with false promise(‘salvation’), baiting into hazard (cultural vulnerability to conquest), using pilpul (excuse making) and critique (straw manning), and the fictionalism of supernaturalism. Judaism to undermine, Christanity to weaken, and islam to destroy. The middle east uses the female reproductive strategy and the far east and far west use the male, with the far east using face over truth to defend hierarchy and the west using truth before face to defend the market of the peerage. And the middle east today just as in the age of the greeks, just lying and shaming all truth without end. The world is not complicated. It is our lies that make it seem so. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550842386 Timestamp) DOMESTICATION BY EXTERMINATION OF ALPHAS by Skye Stewart –“Curt are you in agreement with Wrangmanâs general thesis as explored in this essay?”– —âA decades-long, painstaking experiment by two Russian geneticists working in Siberia showed that reduced brain size, thinner bones, and all of the other markers of domestication syndrome are merely incidental byproducts of a primary adaptation: reduced reactive aggression. In organisms selecting against such aggression, the migration of neural-crest cellsâa special kind of cell that carries developmental instructions throughout the embryo and fetusâis delayed, resulting in smaller bodies, smaller brains, hormonal changes, and the rest. âStudies have been fairly clear on this. What has been unclear is why human communities selected against reactive aggression. For Wrangham, the answer is that group life requires a minimum of stability. No trait is more disruptive than reactive aggression, which fuels such behaviors as quests for dominance and demands for submission; arrogance, bullying, and random violence; and the monopolizing of food and females. That is a behavioral profile of the alpha male, the arch-reactive aggressor. Communities must either endure such pests or eliminate them. Once humans could communicate (the origin of language canât be further narrowed down than three hundred thousand to five hundred thousand years ago, but empathy or âshared intentionalityâ appears to be independent of language and might be sufficient for communication), the die was cast. The origin of domestication, Wrangham proposes, was the group execution of alpha males. Civilization is founded on capital punishmentâor, to give it its anthropological name, âcoalitionary proactive aggression.ââ— —RESPONSE— Exactly. I quote this all the time, and it’s pretty well thought through in the literature. I mean, it’s the dominant theory. Which is why I use it. “Once we had spears, the alpha was doomed” The related argument FYI, is that language was invented to rally spear carriers against alpha males, and this is where female GSRRM comes from: undermining all power in order to preserve her freedom of choice in reproduction. Women don’t know they’re destructive. They do it out of instinct. So the problem is CONSTRAINING the destructive power of women thru undermining, JUST AS MUCH as constraining the coercive power of dominant males. (Note: someone else mentioned that this theory is from Christopher Boehm of Jane Goodall’s clan. I can’t remember off the top of my head, but that would make sense.)
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1550820842 Timestamp) NOTE: When we speak of alphas we are applying a aterm from the study of apes to humans. The definition is of apes and of humans by analogy. human males have dominated reproduction periodically, but with the evolution of weapons (tools) it became possible to redistribute reproduction. With agrarian property even more so. With modernity less so. Ergo dont overthink the analogy.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550970831 Timestamp) THE FUTURE OF “MARRIAGE” Pairing off was driven by reduction of violence. Length of Pairing off was driven by neoteny. Marriage was driven by economic necessity (property). Universal marriage by farming. And the future is open for interpretation.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1550970831 Timestamp) THE FUTURE OF “MARRIAGE” Pairing off was driven by reduction of violence. Length of Pairing off was driven by neoteny. Marriage was driven by economic necessity (property). Universal marriage by farming. And the future is open for interpretation.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551019651 Timestamp) FILLING MARKET DEMAND —“Curt: I think one reason you are refreshing is that you are an example of older WASP masculinity. We are taught from a young age that to be masculine “cool”, assertive, that we must adopt the identity or manner of Irish or Italians [bravado] to be masculine white men. And most who are not WASPs implicitly support this, as it lowers our SMV relative to theirs, to have a large segment of their competition deemed stiff, uncool and out of style.”— G.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551051867 Timestamp) —“Individual differences in achievement motivation were predominantly determined by idiosyncratic experiences (i.e., non-shared environment), with genes coming second, and classical nurture (shared environment) being irrelevant”—