Seriously. Humans are the best toys. Ya’ ever tape a cat’s feet? Well, you can do the same to humans with just a few words. More fun to watch. And nobody thinks you’re being mean…. at least, if you act innocent enough… lolz
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-17 13:31:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1074658219056861184
UM. THE GENDERS CANNOT TAKE EACH OTHER’S VENTING SERIOUSLY
–“I can’t understand men who talk about … putting women back in the kitchen, out of the workforce, or referring to of r_pe during a war. …”— A Female Friend
That’s because you aren’t a man. Just like I am not a woman and can’t imagine that they’re serious rather than hyperbolic (LARPing).
I have overheard far too many conversations of women talking about their husbands as mere monetary and physical resources to be exploited, and the stupidity of men and how women would do such and such better, and how they need female ‘unity’. I am also aware that women are over-privileged compared to men in everything from moral intuitions, to daily life, to health care, to political processes. These things are simply empirical. But they do not change the opinions of women on their relative status.
Naxalt(defense of child) is to some degree a defense against male hyperbole(defense of tribe).
This is why it is so hard for males and females to communicate at any scale. This is why men and women cannot work in or debate politics together except under the most optimum of circumstances.
Hyperbole (exaggeration) of offense, and NAXALT (exaggeration) of defense.
Defending children vs Exciting men.
These cognitive differences are real, universal, and inescapable.
If men wanted to oppress women they would do so. They do not do so because those women are their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers.
But if men agree to do something, there is nothing that can stop them. Because in the end, the use of violence determines all political conflict. And political competition is simply a means of circumventing political violence within the limits of provoking political violence.
Western men treat their women better than all other people’s combined. And under majority democracy it has come at the cost of inequality of outcomes for those men. Hence why I recommend houses for the genders, if there is to be a democratic government of any kind: so that we limit each other.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-17 10:07:00 UTC
Seriously. Humans are the best toys. Ya’ ever tape a cat’s feet? Well, you can do the same to humans with just a few words. More fun to watch. And nobody thinks you’re being mean…. at least, if you act innocent enough… lolz
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-17 08:30:00 UTC
—“What are your thoughts on learned intelligence,cause intelligence? Can we therefore train people to be intelligent(by following certain laws),for example charlie munger has a law of “always arguing the other side better than the opponent”,so did Cicero,and it a nice way of avoiding confirmation bias ,if we create certain rules such as these and train people(like dogs),will we increase their intelligence”— Abhimanyu Karnawat
There are three issues here. And I’m going to expand the range of your question from intelligence to intuition to political consequences.
The first is that intelligence improves with the ability to use language and ideas to calculate. In other words, if you learn english and science and logica, and mathematics a PEOPLE will get smarter by about a standard deviation or so. But it lifts all people in the culture equally. So it’s not so much that we improve the brain but that we improve the precision of it’s means of calculation by better information.
The Second is whether people can produce what we call mindfulness through various trainings (equation, discipline, ritual, practice). The other is whether we know what to train them IN (content).
I want to know how to eliminate all falsehood from that training (content) and any externalities (side effects) caused by the method of practice.
The third is that Everyone in the world wants to preserve his favorite falsehoods – because they’re culture, class, gender and era dependent.
I want to know what is NOT dependent upon those biases.
That’s science.
Now, I am going to clearly bias myself to naturalism because I’m definitely on the Naturalist (scientific) Nature worshiping (old religions), Pagan(hearth religion) side of the anglo scandinavian and german tradition. I know that. I know that is my bias.
The question is whether those biases matter if we get the science right. And I think they don’t.
Particularly for hindu since all in all it’s a pretty awesome religion that scaled nicely.
In my undrestanding the Japanese resisted religion the longest because they had no reason for it.
The chinese and japanese governments were either advocats or forcible imposers of buddhism. There were reasons for doing it and they weren’t good.
The west had no need of religion either. It was forced on them , and then coerced upon them.
I am slowly gaining an understanding of the spread of religion across india and I think it is the most ‘faithful’ to folk religions.
I have only recently come to understand that there is good secular work in indian history – very far back in time. And I have begun studying it a bit. The content is purely empirical and practical and of exceptional quality – equal if not better than the chinese (who are have a problem with loving poetic sounding prose).
I think it is terribly easy to rid the world of Abrahamism in all its forms if we have yet another more secular or naturalist reformation of christianity in the west and bring it closer to our ancestral religion of the hearth home and nature.
But it is not something easily done. And the world has only one enemy today: the followers of the abrahamic religion and their cult of revolution and conquest.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-16 12:29:00 UTC
for me it’s to stop them as much as it is to help us. we don’t need much help other than to stop the defecting of our women.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-16 11:46:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1074269606750113792
Reply addressees: @StirlingFinn
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1074259147648950273
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1074259147648950273
( Teaching by the king of the hill game weeds out the betas faster than all other tactics combined. Why? Female/Beta Moral intuition cannot resist self defense. It’s so obvious that once you see it, you see it everywhere. It’s like NAXALT bait in a Pringles can. )
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-16 03:31:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1074145024953208833
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_lifeWiki Page is Actually OK. Surprisingly.
Technically there is no meaning of life, other than increasing the probability of genetic persistence for those within six or fewer generations of you. We say we want to find ‘meaning’ but this is nothing more than a word-association between the (Positive) experience we feel when we understand, and the fact that there is nothing to undrestand about life other than to make the best use of it that we can before we die.
So the question isn’t whether there is meaning to life. THere isn’t. At best we can estimate a sort of accounting. The question is whether we can CREATE MEANING with our lives.
Experiences, Friends, Family, Generations, Achievements. Leave the world better for having lived in it.
We have but one shot at life, and we have only one choice, and that is how we make use of the time within it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-15 22:48:00 UTC
( Teaching by the king of the hill game weeds out the betas faster than all other tactics combined. Why? Female/Beta Moral intuition cannot resist self defense. It’s so obvious that once you see it, you see it everywhere. It’s like NAXALT bait in a Pringles can. )
Ps: some females won’t fall for it – but few some betas won’t, but most will.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-15 22:31:00 UTC
( Keeping with the theme: Fishing for morons is … it’s so easy. Find something a small mind can feel a sense of superiority (or less inferiority) by attacking or defending and leave it in the open like an eel trap. I should invent a name for this game and see if we can catalog the twenty five most effective moron-traps. )
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-15 21:41:00 UTC
[T]eaching by the king of the hill game weeds out the betas faster than all other tactics combined. Why? Female/Beta Moral intuition cannot resist self defense. It’s so obvious that once you see it, you see it everywhere. It’s like NAXALT bait in a Pringles can. Ps: some females won’t fall for it – but few some betas won’t, but most will.