Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

(illustration of one of the principle differences in gender perception) —“(Insert here one of my many generalizations about the differences between men and women, the fallacies of feminism’s equality, and the need for reciprocal exchanges given our differences.)”– Curt (There is nothing special about Ms.Olson. She is pretty much the product of western education justifying women’s intuition) >Kristina Olson All or nothing speech is extreme. Being extreme in ones views is unbalanced. Unbalance does not follow the laws of nature. Now, you put some in front of men and women, I’d agree with you. Otherwise this statement is completely invalid. >Curt Doolittle Do you know what the cognitive bias called NAXALT is, and how you can identify that a woman, or a male lacking a father is speaking by the use of this cognitive bias? Men cognitively perceive distributions and speak in distributions. Women fear distributions and speak in equality or indifferences. So you merely demonstrate the fact that we are different in cognitive function (which the science says anyway – men and women have different brain structures), just as we are in anti-social behavior, with men biasing toward physical crime and women biasing toward emotional and psychological crime (psychosis). So, no the statement is simply true. Which is one of the primary causes for the relative absence of women in powerful positions in high risk and competitive organizations, versus the relative dominance of women in parasitic monopolistic bureaucracies like the government and education. We are paid in no small part by our loyalty. > Alexander Zavialov We need to drop the notion that bananas are yellow > Kristina Olson Curt Doolittle I think you’re a very angry man, especially towards women. There’s my emotional biased judgement of the day lol. All or nothing speech is irrelevant; it’s simply not factual. Cannot be proven that ALL women or ALL men do anything of what you say. You go against science when you use statements such as these. Put many, most, or some in front of these and it would be perfectly stated. Can you accept constructive criticism? And fuck equality, I must be a man inside then considering I disagree with the entire ideology behind equality and could give a shit less about indifferences. I call things as they are, not how they pertain to my flaws or insecurities. You’re an intelligent man; doesn’t mean you are correct in all that you say or write. (CurtD: interjection – I always find these statements interesting because it’s not like women don’t (a) chase me, (b) try to keep me (c) despite the fact that I’m clueless when a woman is hitting on me or interested in me. (d) and I’ll bet I’m the most supportive, giving, and dedicated man most women will ever meet. (Although my life’s mission is as important to me as children are to a woman.) I’m just not into symbolism, and I can be very ‘detached’ from the ‘present’. Women like men who are on mission, charismatic and work hard.) >Ely Harman I had this one banana that was brown. I had another banana that was green. How does your generalization account for that!? >Alexander Zavialov Nobody said ALL women are X, he said women are X in general. Would you be just as hysterical as if he said women are sensitive? > Kristina Olson Alexander Zavialov not all women are sensitive so when you don’t put any other words in front of the word “women” then yes, it is stating all without saying it > Curt Doolittle My specialty is in not erring. I don’t err often. For the simple reason that I work harder at not being wrong than almost anyone else. It’s my job. My emotional condition has no bearing on whether I speak the truth. Your technique of trying to say it does is just lying. Right? You’re engaging in deception? By trying to say the truth is other than the truth? By saying a normal distribution (bell curve) doesn’t exist whenever we describe the properties of any set of people? Again. It’s a cognitive bias (the lack of reason) that you’re demonstrating not reason. This is why men like me don’t debate with all but a minority of women like you. Because all but a minority of women like you are cognitively biases such that you cannot tell the difference between the TRUE, the GOOD, and the PREFERABLE. Because you are not in fact reasoning, but intuiting (feeling). Evolution made you the way you are so that you will defend your children no matter how bad they are for the family and tribe. It’s not an act of reason, but an instinct. What’s true is true whether you like it or not or whether it’s in your interests or not. I criticize arationality regardless of gender. That’s equality. No deceit allowed is equality. We are all compatible even if we are all different and unequal. it’s by advocating, cooperating and criticizing an conflicting that we calculate an evolutionary path through a universe largely hostile to life. > Kristina Olson Alexander Zavialov and I’m not hysterical at all lol; how can you decipher my tone and attitude thru writing? > Kristina Olson I’m actually getting quite a kick out of the over analyzing of women and men you’re putting on. > Kristina Olson Curt Doolittle once again, it isn’t truth simply because you say it is. I’m not lying and I don’t lie; no need to. You’re right in some regards. Wrong in others. Where is the science that backs up your argument and says “this is a fact”? There is none, it’s all theory. >Curt Doolittle It is a fact that we can, using the big 5/6 inventory, and breaking those dimensions into traits, measure the differences between the expressions of those genders, and this measurement has been done at vast scale over many years. These traits map to reward (endocrine) systems. Those endocrine systems map to stages of the prey and reproductive drives, since in evolutionary history that is the minimum necessary framework evolution was able to work with and extend into the full suite of properties of homo-sapiens-sapiens. As such, while I use Ordinary Language Terms, those terms are necessary to translate those differences in endocrine responses and therefore incentives, to a narrative set of comparisons that people can understand. In this case, men in fact do demonstrate loyalty and women far less, while men do not experience what women call devotion (the feeling they have toward children) on anywhere near the scale. I then translate these terms into economic language such that we see the equilibrial relation between male and female behavior. I do this so that I can explain to people in scientific terms what their intuitions mean, sot hat they know they are both genetically determined (80%) in utero/developmentally determined (20%) and not choice. Because they are not choice, that means we must not expect to CONVINCE each other. Instead the solution is not to achieve one solution or the other but to create exchanges where both get SOME or MOST of what they want (both personally and politically) even if none of us get ALL of what we want. Now because I just assume you are a decent person (it is my default presumption even if I must tolerate the occasional solipsism from the intuitions of women, and the occasional dominance expression from overconfident young men), I’m taking the time to explain this to you – even though you did not take the time to investigate me, or ask me how I came to such conclusions, or even construct a rational or scientific opposition, just an emotive one. But I cannot cover the subjects I do, which literally encompass the entirety of the human spectrum of knowledge and explain every statement in argumentative form. Instead, people tend to follow me for rather long periods, and I post a lot of aphorisms, contrasts (as do confucians, but closed), series, spectra, and grids as well as “SKETCHES” because if I wrote proofs for every idea I put forth (a) no one could comprehend them, and (b) I would cover 1/100000’th of the subjects that I do. OK? Thank you. 😉 > Kristina Olson Justus Bryce They can be a few different colors; yellow usually means ripe, brown means the banana is dying but still useful when baking or cooking, and green means its not ready to be eaten. > Kristina Olson Curt Doolittle Understood and thank you. > Curt Doolittle Hugs > Kristina Olson Now as for this banana question? Why do I keep getting asked about banana colors? > Stephen Klostermeier Because you are being deceptive intentionally to appear rational. The answer is yellow. No need to pontificate or elaborate. Unless of course you are intentionally trying to obfuscate a generally accepted fact. Bananas are yellow. Just as the sky is blue and ice is cold. Further elaboration is a deflective tactic to avoid the topic directly and pretend that the objective is subjective. > Kristina Olson Stephen Klostermeier thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever read. >Kristina Olson Bananas do not start out yellow, just as humans dont start out as full figured bodies…although both are still what they are. A banana is still a banana whether it is ripe or not and a human is still a human whether beginning in the womb or walking around on earth. > Kristina Olson Justus Bryce Ok, so then in all actuality I’m more honest than majority of people because I do my best not to omit details which I see as important. Details are very important in all cases (to me). I assure you there is no deceit whatsoever though. Thats one thing I pride myself on is being honest even when it hurts, being loyal even if it isn’t deserved by the other party, and being honorable whether the other person is or not. I served in the military for a good amount of time; constantly told to pay attention to detail by men. > Kristina Olson Justus Bryce so you think I said what I said to purposely shut down the argument? Because that isn’t even close to my motive for replying with what I did > Greg Hamilton We aren’t landing on the moon. We don’t need to specify the exact percentage when speaking about humans. > Greg Hamilton It’s hairsplitting. It’s “not always” which is designed to paralyze thought and action by preventing rule making. Depending on the rule I only need certain levels of surety to call it a rule. Being able to make those rules allows me to act quickly. It limits friction among allies and allows faster responses to enemies. > Kristina Olson Yes, I know I over think during discussions, but when in situations which require me to think and act quickly, I do so without hesitation based on the training I’ve had. So far in my life, it has worked out well. The only reason I ask so many questions and require detail is because I like to understand EVERYTHING. If I dont understand I continue to seek out answers until I do and then I begin on a new subject. I don’t need exact numbers, but I do take words seriously, so if you state something I will most likely take it apart. I know my differences from men and I am secure with these differences, but I will call someone out if they are trying to make it seem as though these differences are a negative thing. > Gregory Gichev This entire thread is you proving his point. > Greg Hamilton It’s female communication. Males are required to make group judgements regardless of outliers. We know outliers exist we just aren’t willing to ignore the rule because of them. It’s not a lack of intelligence it’s a proof of discipline. Forcing someone to acknowledge every variation and outlier is to demand every person and situation be treated individually with no relation to the past. It’s an argumentative disease that has already nearly destroyed our culture. > Kristina Olson off subject: do any of you have wives? Or children? Not girlfriends (unless you’ve been with her for more than 5 years) >Howard Van Der Klauw Kristina Olson off topic. Yes. One current (wife) and one ex (wife) and four (ex girlfriends). > Curt Doolittle Greg Hamilton —“Males are required to make group judgements regardless of outliers. “— Women evolved to think of individual children’s (and women’s) needs, while men evolved to think of the tribe (family) survival. Division of production cycles, division of temporal perception, cognition, calculation, and advocacy. > Greg Hamilton Curt Doolittle: yes > Charlton Ward Quite a lengthy way to say “NAXALT” > Greg Hamilton Charlton Ward NAXALT is always lengthy… > Greg Hamilton The higher the consequence cost the lower the bar is set to say “always” > Ely Harman All women take generalizations personally. > Greg Hamilton Ely Harman it’s almost like there is a word for that … > Trey Tepichin Curt Doolittle is putting on a clinic here. 🙌🏽 > Curt Doolittle Like I said. Love women. Listen to them (it’s fucking hard to do that I know). Try to make them happy. Don’t argue truth falsehood good or bad, just what is possible or not. Women are the most awesome part of life I’ve found. But they aren’t men, and we aren’t women and we’re both much happier when we understand that. 😉 > Charlton Ward Agreed CD, no matter how hard to current cultural narrative tries to deconstruct this, facts are facts. But back to Christianity, Christians are over all happier, and divorced less. This nation has back slid unbelievable and we are all suffering due to it. > Curt Doolittle Well yes but the question is whether we wouldn’t have MORE people doing that if we reconstructed christianity by means that didn’t make the vast majority of educated people eye-roll at the absurdity. > Dan Warren This thread proves a lot of things. > Curt Doolittle Dan Warren that’s why working this way is so fascinating… >Howard Van Der Klauw On topic. This was an interesting discussion. It’s the difference between distributions and individuals that we all need to understand.

(illustration of one of the principle differences in gender perception) —“(Insert here one of my many generalizations about the differences between men and women, the fallacies of feminism’s equality, and the need for reciprocal exchanges given our differences.)”– Curt (There is nothing special about Ms.Olson. She is pretty much the product of western education justifying women’s intuition) >Kristina Olson All or nothing speech is extreme. Being extreme in ones views is unbalanced. Unbalance does not follow the laws of nature. Now, you put some in front of men and women, I’d agree with you. Otherwise this statement is completely invalid. >Curt Doolittle Do you know what the cognitive bias called NAXALT is, and how you can identify that a woman, or a male lacking a father is speaking by the use of this cognitive bias? Men cognitively perceive distributions and speak in distributions. Women fear distributions and speak in equality or indifferences. So you merely demonstrate the fact that we are different in cognitive function (which the science says anyway – men and women have different brain structures), just as we are in anti-social behavior, with men biasing toward physical crime and women biasing toward emotional and psychological crime (psychosis). So, no the statement is simply true. Which is one of the primary causes for the relative absence of women in powerful positions in high risk and competitive organizations, versus the relative dominance of women in parasitic monopolistic bureaucracies like the government and education. We are paid in no small part by our loyalty. > Alexander Zavialov We need to drop the notion that bananas are yellow > Kristina Olson Curt Doolittle I think you’re a very angry man, especially towards women. There’s my emotional biased judgement of the day lol. All or nothing speech is irrelevant; it’s simply not factual. Cannot be proven that ALL women or ALL men do anything of what you say. You go against science when you use statements such as these. Put many, most, or some in front of these and it would be perfectly stated. Can you accept constructive criticism? And fuck equality, I must be a man inside then considering I disagree with the entire ideology behind equality and could give a shit less about indifferences. I call things as they are, not how they pertain to my flaws or insecurities. You’re an intelligent man; doesn’t mean you are correct in all that you say or write. (CurtD: interjection – I always find these statements interesting because it’s not like women don’t (a) chase me, (b) try to keep me (c) despite the fact that I’m clueless when a woman is hitting on me or interested in me. (d) and I’ll bet I’m the most supportive, giving, and dedicated man most women will ever meet. (Although my life’s mission is as important to me as children are to a woman.) I’m just not into symbolism, and I can be very ‘detached’ from the ‘present’. Women like men who are on mission, charismatic and work hard.) >Ely Harman I had this one banana that was brown. I had another banana that was green. How does your generalization account for that!? >Alexander Zavialov Nobody said ALL women are X, he said women are X in general. Would you be just as hysterical as if he said women are sensitive? > Kristina Olson Alexander Zavialov not all women are sensitive so when you don’t put any other words in front of the word “women” then yes, it is stating all without saying it > Curt Doolittle My specialty is in not erring. I don’t err often. For the simple reason that I work harder at not being wrong than almost anyone else. It’s my job. My emotional condition has no bearing on whether I speak the truth. Your technique of trying to say it does is just lying. Right? You’re engaging in deception? By trying to say the truth is other than the truth? By saying a normal distribution (bell curve) doesn’t exist whenever we describe the properties of any set of people? Again. It’s a cognitive bias (the lack of reason) that you’re demonstrating not reason. This is why men like me don’t debate with all but a minority of women like you. Because all but a minority of women like you are cognitively biases such that you cannot tell the difference between the TRUE, the GOOD, and the PREFERABLE. Because you are not in fact reasoning, but intuiting (feeling). Evolution made you the way you are so that you will defend your children no matter how bad they are for the family and tribe. It’s not an act of reason, but an instinct. What’s true is true whether you like it or not or whether it’s in your interests or not. I criticize arationality regardless of gender. That’s equality. No deceit allowed is equality. We are all compatible even if we are all different and unequal. it’s by advocating, cooperating and criticizing an conflicting that we calculate an evolutionary path through a universe largely hostile to life. > Kristina Olson Alexander Zavialov and I’m not hysterical at all lol; how can you decipher my tone and attitude thru writing? > Kristina Olson I’m actually getting quite a kick out of the over analyzing of women and men you’re putting on. > Kristina Olson Curt Doolittle once again, it isn’t truth simply because you say it is. I’m not lying and I don’t lie; no need to. You’re right in some regards. Wrong in others. Where is the science that backs up your argument and says “this is a fact”? There is none, it’s all theory. >Curt Doolittle It is a fact that we can, using the big 5/6 inventory, and breaking those dimensions into traits, measure the differences between the expressions of those genders, and this measurement has been done at vast scale over many years. These traits map to reward (endocrine) systems. Those endocrine systems map to stages of the prey and reproductive drives, since in evolutionary history that is the minimum necessary framework evolution was able to work with and extend into the full suite of properties of homo-sapiens-sapiens. As such, while I use Ordinary Language Terms, those terms are necessary to translate those differences in endocrine responses and therefore incentives, to a narrative set of comparisons that people can understand. In this case, men in fact do demonstrate loyalty and women far less, while men do not experience what women call devotion (the feeling they have toward children) on anywhere near the scale. I then translate these terms into economic language such that we see the equilibrial relation between male and female behavior. I do this so that I can explain to people in scientific terms what their intuitions mean, sot hat they know they are both genetically determined (80%) in utero/developmentally determined (20%) and not choice. Because they are not choice, that means we must not expect to CONVINCE each other. Instead the solution is not to achieve one solution or the other but to create exchanges where both get SOME or MOST of what they want (both personally and politically) even if none of us get ALL of what we want. Now because I just assume you are a decent person (it is my default presumption even if I must tolerate the occasional solipsism from the intuitions of women, and the occasional dominance expression from overconfident young men), I’m taking the time to explain this to you – even though you did not take the time to investigate me, or ask me how I came to such conclusions, or even construct a rational or scientific opposition, just an emotive one. But I cannot cover the subjects I do, which literally encompass the entirety of the human spectrum of knowledge and explain every statement in argumentative form. Instead, people tend to follow me for rather long periods, and I post a lot of aphorisms, contrasts (as do confucians, but closed), series, spectra, and grids as well as “SKETCHES” because if I wrote proofs for every idea I put forth (a) no one could comprehend them, and (b) I would cover 1/100000’th of the subjects that I do. OK? Thank you. 😉 > Kristina Olson Justus Bryce They can be a few different colors; yellow usually means ripe, brown means the banana is dying but still useful when baking or cooking, and green means its not ready to be eaten. > Kristina Olson Curt Doolittle Understood and thank you. > Curt Doolittle Hugs > Kristina Olson Now as for this banana question? Why do I keep getting asked about banana colors? > Stephen Klostermeier Because you are being deceptive intentionally to appear rational. The answer is yellow. No need to pontificate or elaborate. Unless of course you are intentionally trying to obfuscate a generally accepted fact. Bananas are yellow. Just as the sky is blue and ice is cold. Further elaboration is a deflective tactic to avoid the topic directly and pretend that the objective is subjective. > Kristina Olson Stephen Klostermeier thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever read. >Kristina Olson Bananas do not start out yellow, just as humans dont start out as full figured bodies…although both are still what they are. A banana is still a banana whether it is ripe or not and a human is still a human whether beginning in the womb or walking around on earth. > Kristina Olson Justus Bryce Ok, so then in all actuality I’m more honest than majority of people because I do my best not to omit details which I see as important. Details are very important in all cases (to me). I assure you there is no deceit whatsoever though. Thats one thing I pride myself on is being honest even when it hurts, being loyal even if it isn’t deserved by the other party, and being honorable whether the other person is or not. I served in the military for a good amount of time; constantly told to pay attention to detail by men. > Kristina Olson Justus Bryce so you think I said what I said to purposely shut down the argument? Because that isn’t even close to my motive for replying with what I did > Greg Hamilton We aren’t landing on the moon. We don’t need to specify the exact percentage when speaking about humans. > Greg Hamilton It’s hairsplitting. It’s “not always” which is designed to paralyze thought and action by preventing rule making. Depending on the rule I only need certain levels of surety to call it a rule. Being able to make those rules allows me to act quickly. It limits friction among allies and allows faster responses to enemies. > Kristina Olson Yes, I know I over think during discussions, but when in situations which require me to think and act quickly, I do so without hesitation based on the training I’ve had. So far in my life, it has worked out well. The only reason I ask so many questions and require detail is because I like to understand EVERYTHING. If I dont understand I continue to seek out answers until I do and then I begin on a new subject. I don’t need exact numbers, but I do take words seriously, so if you state something I will most likely take it apart. I know my differences from men and I am secure with these differences, but I will call someone out if they are trying to make it seem as though these differences are a negative thing. > Gregory Gichev This entire thread is you proving his point. > Greg Hamilton It’s female communication. Males are required to make group judgements regardless of outliers. We know outliers exist we just aren’t willing to ignore the rule because of them. It’s not a lack of intelligence it’s a proof of discipline. Forcing someone to acknowledge every variation and outlier is to demand every person and situation be treated individually with no relation to the past. It’s an argumentative disease that has already nearly destroyed our culture. > Kristina Olson off subject: do any of you have wives? Or children? Not girlfriends (unless you’ve been with her for more than 5 years) >Howard Van Der Klauw Kristina Olson off topic. Yes. One current (wife) and one ex (wife) and four (ex girlfriends). > Curt Doolittle Greg Hamilton —“Males are required to make group judgements regardless of outliers. “— Women evolved to think of individual children’s (and women’s) needs, while men evolved to think of the tribe (family) survival. Division of production cycles, division of temporal perception, cognition, calculation, and advocacy. > Greg Hamilton Curt Doolittle: yes > Charlton Ward Quite a lengthy way to say “NAXALT” > Greg Hamilton Charlton Ward NAXALT is always lengthy… > Greg Hamilton The higher the consequence cost the lower the bar is set to say “always” > Ely Harman All women take generalizations personally. > Greg Hamilton Ely Harman it’s almost like there is a word for that … > Trey Tepichin Curt Doolittle is putting on a clinic here. 🙌🏽 > Curt Doolittle Like I said. Love women. Listen to them (it’s fucking hard to do that I know). Try to make them happy. Don’t argue truth falsehood good or bad, just what is possible or not. Women are the most awesome part of life I’ve found. But they aren’t men, and we aren’t women and we’re both much happier when we understand that. 😉 > Charlton Ward Agreed CD, no matter how hard to current cultural narrative tries to deconstruct this, facts are facts. But back to Christianity, Christians are over all happier, and divorced less. This nation has back slid unbelievable and we are all suffering due to it. > Curt Doolittle Well yes but the question is whether we wouldn’t have MORE people doing that if we reconstructed christianity by means that didn’t make the vast majority of educated people eye-roll at the absurdity. > Dan Warren This thread proves a lot of things. > Curt Doolittle Dan Warren that’s why working this way is so fascinating… >Howard Van Der Klauw On topic. This was an interesting discussion. It’s the difference between distributions and individuals that we all need to understand.