Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • SMV

    The endless supply of 17-23 year old girls that send photos to web sites to test (raise) their market value (SMV), and the endless supply of men’s attention that will never tire of ‘window shopping’ same sites (pages, streams, forums). The age of 23 is peak female SMV (market value), because it is peak fertility. However, long term SMV, differs greatly. In other words, it’s pretty hard to be 23 and not attractive. It’s pretty hard to be over 35 and be attractive. And only the best genes last beyond 45. Now men, we don’t peak until 34 or so, and our SMV only increases if we remain fit, sociable, and have assets. The difference between the genders is that we can choose to have high SMV – OR CHOOSE NOT TO.

  • SMV

    The endless supply of 17-23 year old girls that send photos to web sites to test (raise) their market value (SMV), and the endless supply of men’s attention that will never tire of ‘window shopping’ same sites (pages, streams, forums). The age of 23 is peak female SMV (market value), because it is peak fertility. However, long term SMV, differs greatly. In other words, it’s pretty hard to be 23 and not attractive. It’s pretty hard to be over 35 and be attractive. And only the best genes last beyond 45. Now men, we don’t peak until 34 or so, and our SMV only increases if we remain fit, sociable, and have assets. The difference between the genders is that we can choose to have high SMV – OR CHOOSE NOT TO.

  • “If masculinity were truly toxic, then fatherlessness wouldn’t be correlated wit

    —“If masculinity were truly toxic, then fatherlessness wouldn’t be correlated with literally every societal ill.”— Ana Stowe

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 18:01:00 UTC

  • “Understanding is hard. Obedience is easy. This is partially reversed if you’re

    —“Understanding is hard. Obedience is easy. This is partially reversed if you’re autistic, but probably not fully.”— Ely Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 13:02:00 UTC

  • “It’s only worthwhile to argue equality from a position of inferiority.”—Ely H

    —“It’s only worthwhile to argue equality from a position of inferiority.”—Ely Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 12:23:00 UTC

  • The endless supply of 17-23 year old girls that send photos to web sites to test

    The endless supply of 17-23 year old girls that send photos to web sites to test (raise) their market value (SMV), and the endless supply of men’s attention that will never tire of ‘window shopping’ same sites (pages, streams, forums). The age of 23 is peak female SMV (market value), because it is peak fertility. However, long term SMV, differs greatly. In other words, it’s pretty hard to be 23 and not attractive. It’s pretty hard to be over 35 and be attractive. And only the best genes last beyond 45. Now men, we don’t peak until 34 or so, and our SMV only increases if we remain fit, sociable, and have assets. The difference between the genders is that we can choose to have high SMV – OR CHOOSE NOT TO.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 10:01:00 UTC

  • Everquote released the data today that Connecticut has the worst drivers in the

    Everquote released the data today that Connecticut has the worst drivers in the country, followed by Rhode Island – ‘due to bad driving habits’.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 09:07:00 UTC

  • What makes women equal to one another and in value to men, is childbearing

    What makes women equal to one another and in value to men, is childbearing.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 07:59:00 UTC

  • MALE AND FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE COGNITIVE BIASES Science helps us in matters of mut

    MALE AND FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE COGNITIVE BIASES

    Science helps us in matters of mutual misunderstanding between men and women (Or the male brain and female brain):

    1) There is a female, genetic, cognitive bias, toward Solipsism, or what women generally refer to as “personalizing” an argument;

    2) Just as there is a related female, genetic, cognitive bias to argue the person rather than the argument;

    3) just as there is a related female genetic, cognitive bias to NAXALT (“not all x are like that”) – which is the failure to intuit the difference between a distribution (curve) and equality (line);

    4) Just as there is a related female genetic cognitive bias to conflate the desirable/undesirable, with the good/true.

    And… you are demonstrating all those female, genetic, cognitive biases that evolution gave you, so that you would protect your children from any form of outcasting (negative differentiation, boycott) that would limit their chances of prosperity – or even survival.

    I am not a woman, with solipsistic cognitive biases for the purpose of protecting my offspring, but a man, with analytic cognitive biases for the purpose of maintaining or increasing the competitive capacity of the tribe that consists of my brothers our mates, and offspring.

    As such while it is in your reproductive interest to be ‘confused’ to some degree, it is in my reproductive interests to not be. You cannot afford to fail to grasp the world of threats to your offspring as it is, just as I cannot afford to fail grasp the world of threats to my tribe as it is.

    Ergo, I don’t confuse the good/bad with the true/false, nor make the mistake of equality vs distribution, nor deny the overwhelming evidence of demonstrated human nature (prostitution vs war) throughout all of human and pre-human history.

    What I understand you to be saying is that you do not want the public to hold a low opinion of women like you because it would put you at an even greater status disadvantage than you had been in the past. And that I can understand.

    But conversely, I don’t make the mistake of saying that because males disproportionately commit violent crime, that there is any chance I will commit violent crime. Nor would I say it was bad or false to say that they do so. Truth is truth. Period.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 05:21:00 UTC

  • The Flynn Effect Explained

    0) We don’t have IQ tests from 1830 (the beginning of the revolution). Only response tests from later in the 1800’s. 1) the response tests have dropped. (I am still fussing about this one), and response time is pretty much a proxy for iq (which in an age of neural networks we should understand is obvious). 2) The flynn effect has stopped and now reversed. 3) All the gains were at the bottom of the distribution, and the top has remained the same or decreased. (age confirms it) 4) The differences are not in g-loaded parts of the tests, and g-loaded parts are unchanged. 5) Relative positioning remains constant: —“While the secular gains are on g-loaded tests (such as the Wechsler), they are negatively correlated with the most g-loaded components of those tests. Also, the tests lose their g loadedness over time with training, retesting, and familiarity. In an analysis of mathematics and reading scores from tests such as the NAEP and Coleman Report over the last 54 years, we show that there has been no narrowing of the gap in either IQ scores or in educational achievement. From 1954 to 2008, Black 17-year-olds have consistently scored at about the level of White 14-year-olds, yielding IQ equivale”—- 6) We do in fact get a bit better with practice. Not a lot better but better enough to reduce volatility, which would not improve test coverage, but reduce error in tests performed. In other words we aren’t smarter we reduce errors. 7) General knowledge ‘saturation’ produces patterns involuntarily that has to be learned intentionally (or by reading) as in the past. HOWERVER As I understand it, people are ‘smarter in general’ for the simple reason that by ‘thinking scientifically’ we in fact are training ourselves to apply general rules. In other words, people at the turn of the century were more likely to think in instance-rules and commands, than general rules, and we have in fact gotten better at the use of general rules. Hence why I am an advocate for the German and English Languages, and in particular operational language, because I am certain that the same gains will be produced as were produced by scientific thought (general rules). Ergo, this is much scarier: that means some ideas not only make us dumber, they imprison us in dumbness. MORE LATER.