Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • LOVE IS ENOUGH. TRUTH IS FOR MEN. POSSIBILITY FOR WOMEN. Like I said. Love women

    LOVE IS ENOUGH. TRUTH IS FOR MEN. POSSIBILITY FOR WOMEN.

    Like I said. Love women. Listen to them (it’s hard to do that for any length of time I know – but all men develop the ability to filter, respond, and not try to solve all their problems). Try to make them happy as you can without going into debt. Don’t argue truth and falsehood, or good or bad, just take a stand on what is possible and advisable or not. Women are the most awesome part of life I’ve found, and other than destroying the competition in business the greatest high. 😉 But they aren’t men, and we aren’t women, and we’re both much happier when we understand that. 😉 It’s usually easier to get men to understand that women aren’t men than get (american) women to understand men aren’t women. The problem is very simple economics of demographics: since women are more marginally indifferent and more narrowly distributed, the number of men desirable for women is much smaller than the number of women desirable for men – and this is a constant problem. Women settle much more often than men. And while women almost always underestimate their sexual market value (it’s just weight and preening and you’re there), men vastly overestimate their sexual market value. So for men, it’s not complicated: read heavy things, lift heavy things, save and invest everything you can. When a woman attracts a man her standard of living increases by twenty percent or more. When a man attracts a woman his standard of living decreases by twenty percent or more. For women men are emotionally burdensome, and for men women are experientially (financially) burdensome. So make sure you understand the investment you’re making in one another. Marriage is the most damaging financial mistake you can make and is the most significant factor in determining whether you will be comfortable and happy or poor and depressed in old age.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 17:04:00 UTC

  • Demonstrating the NAXALT Bias

    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.

  • Demonstrating the NAXALT Bias

    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.

  • I can’t write proofs for every post. Besides. People wouldn’t read them.

    UM, LET ME HELP YOU….. —“Just an opinion”— 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. 😉

  • I can’t write proofs for every post. Besides. People wouldn’t read them.

    UM, LET ME HELP YOU….. —“Just an opinion”— 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. 😉

  • “Males are required to make group judgements regardless of outliers. “— Greg H

    —“Males are required to make group judgements regardless of outliers. “— Greg Hamilton

    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.

    We are amazing together, but we are cognitive specialists. We need to understand what part of the production cycle we specialize in. The now, the soon, the later, and the future.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 15:41:00 UTC

  • “Women are devoted, and men are loyal. There’s a difference.”

    —“Women are devoted, and men are loyal. There’s a difference.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 15:14:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993509259613745153

  • UM, LET ME HELP YOU….. —“Just an opinion”— It is a fact that we can, using

    UM, LET ME HELP YOU…..

    —“Just an opinion”—

    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. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 12:54:00 UTC

  • Do you know what the cognitive bias called NAXALT is, and how you can identify t

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 12:13:00 UTC

  • “Women are devoted, and men are loyal. There’s a difference.”

    —“Women are devoted, and men are loyal. There’s a difference.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 11:13:00 UTC