https://elegantwoman.org/etiquette-charm-finishing-schoolFINISHING SCHOOL FOR WOMEN
https://elegantwoman.org/etiquette-charm-finishing-school
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 10:57:00 UTC
https://elegantwoman.org/etiquette-charm-finishing-schoolFINISHING SCHOOL FOR WOMEN
https://elegantwoman.org/etiquette-charm-finishing-school
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 10:57:00 UTC
FINISHING SCHOOL FOR MEN
https://www.britishbutlerinstitute.com/finishing-school-home/finishing-school-programmes/finishing-school-for-men/
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 10:56:00 UTC
ART? MATTERS OF TASTE? OR MATTERS OF EDUCATION AND SKILL?
Taste is a consequence of ability, bias, knowledge, and skill. Some people have bad taste. Some classes have bad taste. Some cultures have bad taste. It’s not a matter of opinion.
So just as MORAL intuitions vary due to genetics, gender, class, culture, and education, TASTE intuitions vary due to the same. They are both intuitionistic responses. But all intuitions can be trained with the limits of one’s abilities.
Color blindness, tone deafness, face-blindness, weak pattern recognition, and general inability to learn by observation do influence you.
Familiarity with and associations between patterns and symbols and recognition of the difference between content/value/narrative, fashion/style, movement/period, and technique/materials will anchor you in your traditional frames.
However, it is possible to learn to understand all of them and distinguish between them, and separate premium, good, weak, and bad examples.
The principle weakness in developing taste is composition (sets) vs objects (items). One can collect similar items, or one can make a composition consisting of items. Most people capable of learning can be trained to produce compositions instead of selecting (impulsive) items.
For example, we can appreciate Fletes Cruz, a Botero and a Wei, just as easily as a monet and degas, just as easily as a Rubens and Durer, and to recognize the vast difference between Rodin and Michelangelo and nearly every other sculptor that ever lived. Or the self made prisons that Giacometti’s and Picasso’s styles made for them.
Once you look at works, and tie them to periods, movements, and the economic and political environments you can see the arts as just another technological reflection of the period, and enjoy all of it.
I can be just as happy in colonial, edwardian, victorian, craftsman, and mid century modern, and I prefer the romantics but in my hope I would hang a Rothko, and modern.
The problem is, ‘what is your favorite’ is the absolute WORST question you can ask someone, and it is the worst way to develop taste. Instead, compositions can be beautiful or not. Preferable or not. And preferable for intended purpose or not.
Bad work is very easy to identify because of craftsmanship and design. But bad style and content requires understanding context.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 09:46:00 UTC
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN NONSENSE-SPEECH
(humor)
—“Girls talk about stupid girl stuff, and guys talk about stupid guy stuff. We all do it. The difference is guys know it’s stupid stuff.”— A Friend
It’s just that girls maintain the peace by not ADMITTING its stupid stuff (Defecting), where men preserve loyalty by admitting it’s stupid stuff.
Inverse relations, same purpose.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 09:08:00 UTC
—“We have a strong relationship where I get “volun-told” what I like.”— Husband
Does that sound like a c u c k?
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 09:05:00 UTC
RT @DegenRolf: Widely touted psychology study, finding, in essence, that the rich are jerks, fails to replicate. https://www.collabra.org/articles/10.1525/collabra.166/ h…
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 00:47:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053447694813970432
Jonathan (all): The same demonstration of ‘Affordable Preference Pursuit’ is the reason that under prosperity we’ve diverged politically instead of converged as expected: Feminine, Equalitarian Proportionality, Herd morality vs Masculine Reciprocity Proportionality,Pack morality.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 00:28:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053442915077361667
Reply addressees: @JonHaidt @glukianoff @sciencemagazine
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1053301452062556161
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/1053301452062556161
October 19th, 2018 10:23 AM
—“CURT: WHAT IS ‘GENETIC LOAD’ IN CONTEXT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY?”— —“Can I get a quick rundown on genetic load?”—Stephen Murray
In the context of POLITICAL ECONOMY (What I do) IT’S AN ARGUMENT FOR A ONE CHILD POLICY. 1) Long version: “… ratio of the employable (productive) to the unemployable (un productive).. sufficient to produce a pareto distribution (power law) at a given level of development (institutions, technology, economy) in competition with (context of) a given world economy (exterior condition). …” 2) Short version: since you must produce a pareto distribution in order to organize an economy the ratio of the 120+ class to the rest of the population must be sufficient to do so. 3) Or, Shortest version: a small group of people with a median distribution of 100-112 cannot organize a productive competitive polity out of a large population with a median of 75-85. 4) Or Colloquial (“Over Beers”) version: – You cannot make a china out of an india. – You cannot make a europe out of the middle east. – You cannot make a europe out of a south america. … without decreasing the genetic load ( by the most civilized means: one child policy.) HOWEVER…. You can however devolve a north america, a europe, a russia into a south america, india, middle east, by increasing genetic load through immigration or asymmetric reproduction.
October 19th, 2018 10:23 AM
—“CURT: WHAT IS ‘GENETIC LOAD’ IN CONTEXT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY?”— —“Can I get a quick rundown on genetic load?”—Stephen Murray
In the context of POLITICAL ECONOMY (What I do) IT’S AN ARGUMENT FOR A ONE CHILD POLICY. 1) Long version: “… ratio of the employable (productive) to the unemployable (un productive).. sufficient to produce a pareto distribution (power law) at a given level of development (institutions, technology, economy) in competition with (context of) a given world economy (exterior condition). …” 2) Short version: since you must produce a pareto distribution in order to organize an economy the ratio of the 120+ class to the rest of the population must be sufficient to do so. 3) Or, Shortest version: a small group of people with a median distribution of 100-112 cannot organize a productive competitive polity out of a large population with a median of 75-85. 4) Or Colloquial (“Over Beers”) version: – You cannot make a china out of an india. – You cannot make a europe out of the middle east. – You cannot make a europe out of a south america. … without decreasing the genetic load ( by the most civilized means: one child policy.) HOWEVER…. You can however devolve a north america, a europe, a russia into a south america, india, middle east, by increasing genetic load through immigration or asymmetric reproduction.
October 18th, 2018 7:52 PM
“Adults living in a scientific culture are more rational (and intelligent) than adults living in pre-modern cultures. For example, according to studies conducted in the 1960s and 1970s, even educated adults living in Papua New Guinea did not reach the formal stage. Australian Aborigines who were still living a traditional lifestyle barely developed beyond a preoperational stage in their adult years. Without a population that has mentally developed to the level of formal operations, which entails a capacity to think about abstract relationships and symbols without concrete forms, a capacity to grasp syllogistic reasoning, comprehend algebra, formulate hypotheses, there can be no modernization”
Or a concept of reciprocal, negotiated sovereignty! Conceptualising and operating in such a paradigm is as foreign as colonising mars! h/tip Curt Doolittle (No idea who posted this)