—“High average IQ in a polity creates confidence that individuals you interact with are not constrained to non-reciprocal behavior”–Micah Pezdirtz
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-06 15:00:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081928461260914688
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/49347972_10156899555122264_7525335018206396416_o_10156899555112264.jpg GOALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR AGENCY AS WELL AS NATURE.
I prefer we target the virtue spectrum from stoicism (little agency), to epicureanism (personal agency, to aristocracy (political agency) rather than a universal. The technique serves the mind no matter what virtues we seek to give it, but that does not mean ‘monotheism’ so to speak in that we must all seek the same. We each have different agency. We require goals that provide mindfulness in accordance with our agency.Scott ClaremontDo you apply agency as a god/Demi god/hero in the sense as the Romans did? How does one grasp the spectrum of agency?Jan 7, 2019, 4:25 AMCurt Doolittlecan you reprase the question because I can interpret that far too many ways to provide an answer….Jan 7, 2019, 8:48 AMScott Claremontwhat bearings can one use to gauge his agency along the way? Is there a living example of god ? *the guy who has nothing but agency/no animal nature so to speak. A guy who has great agency but is still evolving his agency. Then a guy who has less than him, then all the way down to females and then the animalJan 7, 2019, 3:58 PMCurt Doolittlewe are gods. if we sat before aristotle and alexander today they would believe our claim – that at least we were demigods. They did not believe in the gods as we imagine, the simple people did just as the simple people do today. the demand for gods is iversely proportional to one’s agencyJan 7, 2019, 4:08 PMScott ClaremontCurt Doolittle who do we look to to model agency ? Our groupJan 7, 2019, 4:44 PMCurt DoolittleWhy would you ‘look’ to anyone?Jan 7, 2019, 4:45 PMScott ClaremontCurt Doolittle to know what agency looks like. How does one know if he’s doing it right or where he needs to growJan 7, 2019, 4:51 PMCurt DoolittleBill Joslin ^Jan 7, 2019, 6:37 PMBill JoslinWhat might clear up some confusion would be thinking of agency as the substrate which can’t be negotiated independent of structure (nature, social, institutional influences etc) and instead swap out the terms agency for autonomy. Where agency/structure are a pair within a constant relation (like supply/demand are a pair which have a constant relation) and autonomy is one phase or location along to curve.
By doing so agency in the way you are using it, or autonomy in the way I’m suggesting as an alternative, starts to become synonymous with soveriegnty.
We can obtain autonomy via institutional protection (law, individual rights) and social circumstances (enriched environment, opportunity, education etc) – or via our own industriousness, influence and power. (And combinations of each)
The former would be liberty, the later soveriegnty. The former demigods, the later gods.
Then on the other end of the spectrum from Soveriegnty would be those whose use of agency forces others to constrain and restrict their behaviour – they wouldn’t obtain much autonomy by way of consequences of their use of agency.Jan 7, 2019, 7:13 PMScott ClaremontIt is easier using the word autonomy. I have struggled with my own as I tend to look outside myself for intuitive feelings I know the answer, but cannot absorb the feelings so I look for an elder to talk about them.
Do you elders have elders to talk to or have you reached complete autonomy ?Jan 7, 2019, 9:13 PMBill JoslinScott Claremont me? I’m a flipp’n meathead. Hahahaha
I’m inhabited by Curt’s ideas, with the occasional meager innovation of my own. So no, I’m not autonomous, but with help of other have had a taste. Like soveriegnty via a network of allied men skilled in violence, together we can generate autonomy with each other via a network of minds which are skilled in disambiguation: Force multipliers together.Jan 7, 2019, 9:27 PMScott ClaremontBill Joslin who does Curt turn to ? Megan I bet..Jan 7, 2019, 10:04 PMScott ClaremontMegan K. Usui thanks babe. I appreciate your feedbackJan 9, 2019, 12:47 AMBill JoslinWhat? The palace whisperer deleted her tracks?Jan 9, 2019, 1:37 AMScott ClaremontBill Joslin yeah don’t get it. Maybe she thought she was a little too harshJan 9, 2019, 2:13 AMBill Joslin(you are too kind in your assessments- more.like managing the appearances of her affiliations)Jan 9, 2019, 2:15 AMGOALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR AGENCY AS WELL AS NATURE.
I prefer we target the virtue spectrum from stoicism (little agency), to epicureanism (personal agency, to aristocracy (political agency) rather than a universal. The technique serves the mind no matter what virtues we seek to give it, but that does not mean ‘monotheism’ so to speak in that we must all seek the same. We each have different agency. We require goals that provide mindfulness in accordance with our agency.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-06 14:58:00 UTC
http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response?fbclid=IwAR02Jlx5CLeUKLE4ovolOnAI3UMKZCxwAjVfBayrt1UKCvlhBoiDuu_hpTsSTEREOTYPES ARE THE MOST ACCURATE MEASURE IN SOCIAL SCIENCE
via Brandon Hayes, via Rosenborg Predmetsky
(worth repeating) (just like IQ the most accurate measure in psychology).
from: http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response/
THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
This blog is not the place to review the overwhelming evidence of stereotype accuracy, though interested readers are directed to SPSR and our updated reviews that have appeared in Current Directions in Psychological Science (Jussim et al, 2015) and Todd Nelson’s Handbook of Stereotypes, Prejudice and Discrimination (Jussim et al, 2016). Summarizing those reviews:
Over 50 studies have now been performed assessing the accuracy of demographic, national, political, and other stereotypes.
Stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. Richard et al (2003) found that fewer than 5% of all effects in social psychology exceeded r’s of .50. In contrast, nearly all consensual stereotype accuracy correlations and about half of all personal stereotype accuracy correlations exceed .50.[1]
The evidence from both experimental and naturalistic studies indicates that people apply their stereotypes when judging others approximately rationally. When individuating information is absent or ambiguous, stereotypes often influence person perception. When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are “massive” (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent.
This puts the lie to longstanding claims that “stereotypes lead people to ignore individual differences.”
There are only a handful of studies that have examined whether the situations in which people rely on stereotypes when judging individuals increases or reduces person perception accuracy. Although those studies typically show that doing so increases person perception accuracy, there are too few to reach any general conclusion. Nonetheless, that body of research provides no support whatsoever for the common presumption that the ways and conditions under which people rely on stereotypes routinely reduces person perception accuracy.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-06 14:41:00 UTC
THE SECRET TO TEACHING MEN: EXHAUSTIVE KING OF THE HILL.
Teaching men is really easy: Bait them into dominance play.
Just as exhaustive forgiveness in tit-for-tat is the optimum cooperative strategy, exhaustive baiting for dominance play is the optimum MALE cooperative strategy.
WTF do you think shit-talking amounts to? Are you fking thick?
(See what I did there?)
Set up King of the Hill games where ANY forward progress gets the men recognition. Do not criticize failure, only cowardice, attention seeking, or time wasting.
If you are too predictable you will ruin the game. You must present a variety of challenges.
We cannot feel ‘good’ about learning by conformity the way girls and women do. We must play at fighting or it’s not worth our time.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-06 14:13:00 UTC
NOPE. NOT STUPID. SPECIALIZED.
I do not consider the female brain stupid whatsoever, but specialized for high risk temporal decision making in the preservation of environments in which young can survive.
Just as male brains are specialized for high risk intertemporal decision making in the preservation of environments in which their COLLECTIVE genes can survive, via that pack consisting of themselves and male relatives, and their herd of women, and those women’s herd of offspring.
WE WORK BY DIVIDING THE INTERTEMPORAL LABOR
Consistent, temporal, small, local, vs Variable, intertemporal, scale, and regional.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-06 10:05:00 UTC
—“High average IQ in a polity creates confidence that individuals you interact with are not constrained to non-reciprocal behavior”–Micah Pezdirtz
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-06 10:00:00 UTC
by Aaron Kahland
IQ is ultra meaningful – we have illustrated time and again that a society’s (country’s) average IQ is seven times more important than your own IQ in determining your standard of living. Individual IQ isn’t that important (at least within an sd of the mean) yet average IQs are critically important. In other words, better off a fool in Luxembourg than a genius in Lebanon.
(CD: Trust is a byproduct of the decrease in frictions (via-negativa) of truthful discourse and better calculation of options.)
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-06 09:42:00 UTC
Everyone is trolling. They are more obvious and not, and more intentional and not. But to some degree we all do nothing but negotiate for our preferences either by shaming, begging, advisin, exchanging, competing, or conquering. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-05 18:48:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081623522248744961
IS IT THAT SIMPLE?
Seems to be a common observation that men informationally limited and insensitive and women are informationally oversaturated and hypersensitive, while we both have about the same limits on calculating decidability.
You hear this a lot:
–“Men are stupid and women are crazy”–
But honestly it’s just cognitive structure. The drawers of the male mind and relative insensitivity, and the nets of the female mind and relative hypersensitivity.
Evolution must have had a lot of fun rolling up those characters sheets….
Seriously. I wonder how many times Zeus rolled the dice before he said “Wow, do ya’ know how much fun we’re gonna have watching THIS pairing of the sexes? We are gonna be entertained for the next million years!!!”
The gods have a mischievous sense of humor.
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-05 15:18:00 UTC
Everyone is trolling. They are more obvious and not, and more intentional and not. But to some degree we all do nothing but negotiate for our preferences either by shaming, begging, advisin, exchanging, competing, or conquering. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-01-05 13:48:00 UTC