–“Hey Curt, how would you explain the fat-tailed, high-standard-deviation distribution of male IQ scores from an evolutionary/natural selection/sexual selection standpoint?”—Yiannis Kontinopoulos I can’t take time to make a complete list but here are the most obvious factors: (a) hierarchies are necessary for decision making, and outliers facilitate hierarchy formation. (b) intelligence appears to be (very) high causal density (ie: fragile) (c) intelligence as we understand it requires time (vulnerability) even if it succeeds at condensing time. So there is equal demand for impulsivity( short reaction times). (d) habituation of advantages in large numbers is lower cost than intelligence in large numbers. (e) brains are 11x as expensive as muscles. (e) there is very little value to female intelligence (equality). Intelligence is only as valueable as it is combined with aggression and physical ability. otherwise intelligence at the cost of aggression and physical ability just leads to defeat by ‘cheaper’ group strategies. And yes that means what you think it does. Updated: Well, as the comments suggest, intelligence is to some degree an advantage for the group, even if women don’t select for it (much at all). Also, the “crazy high risk uncle” is extremely valuable for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Also, the ‘lunatic’ is advantageous for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Women select for what we consider ‘sports team members’ – at least as best as they can obtain. My point was that there is a reason it’s an outlier phenomenon: it’s expensive, it requires high causal density, women counter-select for it, and there is a limit to the value of the distribution.
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
Fat Tailed Male IQ Scores
–“Hey Curt, how would you explain the fat-tailed, high-standard-deviation distribution of male IQ scores from an evolutionary/natural selection/sexual selection standpoint?”—Yiannis Kontinopoulos I can’t take time to make a complete list but here are the most obvious factors: (a) hierarchies are necessary for decision making, and outliers facilitate hierarchy formation. (b) intelligence appears to be (very) high causal density (ie: fragile) (c) intelligence as we understand it requires time (vulnerability) even if it succeeds at condensing time. So there is equal demand for impulsivity( short reaction times). (d) habituation of advantages in large numbers is lower cost than intelligence in large numbers. (e) brains are 11x as expensive as muscles. (e) there is very little value to female intelligence (equality). Intelligence is only as valueable as it is combined with aggression and physical ability. otherwise intelligence at the cost of aggression and physical ability just leads to defeat by ‘cheaper’ group strategies. And yes that means what you think it does. Updated: Well, as the comments suggest, intelligence is to some degree an advantage for the group, even if women don’t select for it (much at all). Also, the “crazy high risk uncle” is extremely valuable for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Also, the ‘lunatic’ is advantageous for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Women select for what we consider ‘sports team members’ – at least as best as they can obtain. My point was that there is a reason it’s an outlier phenomenon: it’s expensive, it requires high causal density, women counter-select for it, and there is a limit to the value of the distribution.
-
WHY WE GET IT WRONG: ‘ABLENESS AND AGENCY’ That’s why we always get it wrong: on
WHY WE GET IT WRONG: ‘ABLENESS AND AGENCY’
That’s why we always get it wrong: only SOME of us want sovereignty, liberty, and freedom. Most all humans instead want security and subsidy. Which is ok. As long as they don’t have say in anything.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-14 14:32:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1007269561471848448
-
WHY WE GET IT WRONG: ‘ABLENESS AND AGENCY’ That’s why we always get it wrong: on
WHY WE GET IT WRONG: ‘ABLENESS AND AGENCY’
That’s why we always get it wrong: only SOME of us want sovereignty, liberty, and freedom. Most all humans instead want security and subsidy. Which is ok. As long as they don’t have say in anything.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-14 10:32:00 UTC
-
SYNTHETIC FEMALE vs ANALYTIC MALE – ANOTHER EXAMPLE —“The most common form of
SYNTHETIC FEMALE vs ANALYTIC MALE – ANOTHER EXAMPLE
—“The most common form of synesthesia is when people see or hear words in colour. The condition affects about 1 in 25 000 people and is found more commonly in women than men.”—
FEMALE <-Psychotic <- Solipsistic < Feminine – Neutral – Masculine ->Aspie -> Autistic -> MALE
(Female )Breadth Traversal vs Depth Traversal (Male)
Think of the hierarchy of neurons as a database of sensory fragments and relations.
And thought as the process of constantly iterating (recursive) searches, with experience and short term memory of that experience as our constantly changing result set.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-14 10:30:00 UTC
-
“Hey Curt, how would you explain the fat-tailed, high-standard-deviation distrib
—“Hey Curt, how would you explain the fat-tailed, high-standard-deviation distribution of male IQ scores from an evolutionary/natural selection/sexual selection standpoint?”—Yiannis Kontinopoulos
I can’t take time to make a complete list but here are the most obvious factors:
(a) hierarchies are necessary for decision making, and outliers facilitate hierarchy formation.
(b) intelligence appears to be (very) high causal density (ie: fragile)
(c) intelligence as we understand it requires time (vulnerability) even if it succeeds at condensing time. So there is equal demand for impulsivity( short reaction times).
(d) habituation of advantages in large numbers is lower cost than intelligence in large numbers.
(e) brains are 11x as expensive as muscles.
(e) there is very little value to female intelligence (equality).
Intelligence is only as valueable as it is combined with aggression and physical ability. otherwise intelligence at the cost of aggression and physical ability just leads to defeat by ‘cheaper’ group strategies.
And yes that means what you think it does.
Updated:
Well, as the comments suggest, intelligence is to some degree an advantage for the group, even if women don’t select for it (much at all). Also, the “crazy high risk uncle” is extremely valuable for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Also, the ‘lunatic’ is advantageous for the group, even if women don’t select for it.
Women select for what we consider ‘sports team members’ – at least as best as they can obtain.
My point was that there is a reason it’s an outlier phenomenon: it’s expensive, it requires high causal density, women counter-select for it, and there is a limit to the value of the distribution.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-14 08:18:00 UTC
-
LATE AGE SUICIDE: LONELINESS Its Loneliness. That’s the data. Not money. Lonelin
LATE AGE SUICIDE: LONELINESS
Its Loneliness. That’s the data. Not money. Loneliness. And buying attention and affection substitutes is too expensive in the absence of family and friends.
Families are the only possible insurer.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-12 20:33:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1006635534339461121
-
The Secret to Listening to Women
I’ve written about the problem of men learning to listen to women for years now, and it seems like one of those things that we ought to be taught as a general man-rule. The trick to listening to women is listening 10% and thinking about something else 90% rather than asking a woman to distill her thoughts down to the 10% of facts that matter. Worse, we don’t get all the signaling involved between women – it doesn’t exist – so the entire point of communication may in fact be nothing other than the transfer of signals. Unfortunately there is no course in ‘woman speak’ for men to take. Even if it’s the most valuable course we could take. I just listen. And ask questions. The hard part is learning NOT TO TRY TO SOLVE A PROBLEM. Just listen. I think the problem occurs when women ask men to experience their emotions the way another woman does, when they share experiences. This forces men to lie – to pretend either that they understand them, or that they feel them, or that they even can feel them. What I’ve found is that if a woman explains how she felt I can undrestand it. But describing the circumstance itself does not help me understand it. Finally, to just show that I understand, and usually that her feelings were justified. The hard part is not trying to inquire or solve the problem but just show you understand, accept, and let her express (exit, expend, exhaust) her emotions. It’s different with staff. Some women need to be taught that when talking to men, it’s JUST THE FACTS, and WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO?. Otherwise the woman is using my much shallower emotional reservoir and clouding my judgement. Most people by a large margin prefer male bosses for the simple reason that we don’t get involved in the emotional stuff. But it’s actually because we don’t even see it, hear it, or understand it. And if we do, we consider it childish and it makes us angry. The trick for men with women is always patience. 😉 Which is in fact, the trick with all human beings. Patience is the under appreciated and misunderstood. Why? ‘Cause it’s costly
-
The Secret to Listening to Women
I’ve written about the problem of men learning to listen to women for years now, and it seems like one of those things that we ought to be taught as a general man-rule. The trick to listening to women is listening 10% and thinking about something else 90% rather than asking a woman to distill her thoughts down to the 10% of facts that matter. Worse, we don’t get all the signaling involved between women – it doesn’t exist – so the entire point of communication may in fact be nothing other than the transfer of signals. Unfortunately there is no course in ‘woman speak’ for men to take. Even if it’s the most valuable course we could take. I just listen. And ask questions. The hard part is learning NOT TO TRY TO SOLVE A PROBLEM. Just listen. I think the problem occurs when women ask men to experience their emotions the way another woman does, when they share experiences. This forces men to lie – to pretend either that they understand them, or that they feel them, or that they even can feel them. What I’ve found is that if a woman explains how she felt I can undrestand it. But describing the circumstance itself does not help me understand it. Finally, to just show that I understand, and usually that her feelings were justified. The hard part is not trying to inquire or solve the problem but just show you understand, accept, and let her express (exit, expend, exhaust) her emotions. It’s different with staff. Some women need to be taught that when talking to men, it’s JUST THE FACTS, and WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO?. Otherwise the woman is using my much shallower emotional reservoir and clouding my judgement. Most people by a large margin prefer male bosses for the simple reason that we don’t get involved in the emotional stuff. But it’s actually because we don’t even see it, hear it, or understand it. And if we do, we consider it childish and it makes us angry. The trick for men with women is always patience. 😉 Which is in fact, the trick with all human beings. Patience is the under appreciated and misunderstood. Why? ‘Cause it’s costly
-
The Rate of IQ Decline Is Terrifying
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/dumb-and-dumber-why-we-re-getting-less-intelligent-80k3bl83v