—“Being ‘Nice’ is just using the herd to hide”—Nick Heywood
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-05 16:47:00 UTC
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
“WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON TEEN SEX?”— As always, the problem is not sex, but ca
—“WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON TEEN SEX?”—
As always, the problem is not sex, but causes and consequences:
(a) pregnancy – and the damage this does to not only you, the child, but the society that must pay for your mistakes,
(b) and single motherhood,
(c) or immature parenthood,
(d) the degree of interest in it, such that it detracts from other things.
(e) the high correlation between multiple sex partners and unsuccessful families.
The ‘intensity’ of the male sex drive in the teens is just …. amazing. Testosterone is the most wonderful drug of all. It’s just mind-consuming.
I think for boys it doesn’t matter – we are evolutionary machines and the need for sex is purely physical. But girls are different – and should not use sex to ‘buy’ attention, or being liked, or ‘belonging’, or ‘status’ (which is all too common), and should not participate because of alcohol or drugs – if you need alcohol you aren’t ready yet.
This is the best test: If you aren’t prepared with protection, aren’t ready to do it without chemical assistance, aren’t willing to plan it rather than stumble into it, and you aren’t willing to keep it between the two of you permanently, then you aren’t ready. Conversely, if you have protection, don’t need chemical assistance (drugs or alcohol), can plan it so that it’s private somewhere, and can keep it between the two of you permanently (the urge to tell everyone is very powerful), then you might be ready.
General rule of thumb: What happens between male and female is no one’s business as long as you don’t make it anyone’s business. This is true in all walks of life. The problem is, do you need to tell anyone? If you do, then you aren’t ready.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-05 16:46:00 UTC
-
answer to Do people with an average IQ appear to be dumb to people with a very h
https://t.co/So37KMrySeMy answer to Do people with an average IQ appear to be dumb to people with a very high IQ (135+)? Do the latter easily become frustrated with the former? https://t.co/So37KMrySe
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-05 16:08:00 UTC
-
social justice warriors (Neurotics) appear ‘dumb’ to me
https://www.quora.com/Do-people-with-an-average-IQ-appear-to-be-dumb-to-people-with-a-very-high-IQ-135%2B-Do-the-latter-easily-become-frustrated-with-the-former/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=f268f2ed&srid=u4QvOnly social justice warriors (Neurotics) appear ‘dumb’ to me.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-05 16:08:00 UTC
-
answer to Do people with an average IQ appear to be dumb to people with a very h
https://t.co/So37KMrySeMy answer to Do people with an average IQ appear to be dumb to people with a very high IQ (135+)? Do the latter easily become frustrated with the former?
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-05 16:08:00 UTC
-
Being ‘nice’ is the whole problem. It’s like postmodern parenting: responsibilit
Being ‘nice’ is the whole problem. It’s like postmodern parenting: responsibility avoidance.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-05 10:14:00 UTC
-
We can use food to sedate, to medicate, cure, and to entertain. Most foods i see
We can use food to sedate, to medicate, cure, and to entertain.
Most foods i see today are used as sedatives for lack of exercise, sociability, and rest. If you are using food as a curative or sedative you’re working on the wrong problem.
It’s fitness, socialization, and rest.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-05 10:06:00 UTC
-
Peak Human?
—“Are there any morphological differences between the brain of a highly intelligent person and a person with average intelligence?”— Three positive factors: 1 – greater neurogenesis 2 – greater neural density 3 – greater white matter (reduced friction) Three negative factors 4 – Lack of defect in biochemistry (or other illness) 5 – Lack of defect in personality trait (brain structure and chemistry) 6 – Lack of defect due to trauma (of any kind). And one less obvious: 7 – False knowledge or beliefs (non-correspondence). Certain sets of ideas are incredibly attractive but entirely destructive to our ability to think. We should note that so far, (as most of us expected) a) intelligence is influenced by a very large number of genes. b) unfortunately most influences are negative not positive. HOWEVER That means: c) that potential intelligence does not require we increase any substantial capacity. d) that potential intelligence can be incrementally increased by cumulative, specific, genetic corrections. AND f) Ot seems likely that intelligence then developed a long time ago by accident but through reproduction we have not been able to produce dominance in intelligence without controlled reproduction (like we do with animals), OR g) Or the innate possibility was there originally and we have actually devolved from it. This hypothesis isn’t as strange as it originally sounds. Its entirely possible that the rapid increases in our ability to communicate produced greater selection pressure on verbal ability than it did intelligence, and we began to function more as a collective (social) intelligence than individually intelligent agents who imitated each other. The relationship between brain size and intelligence isn’t linear but it exists, and we have smaller (less expensive) brains than both Neanderthals and Cro Magnon’s for example. In other words, we might have passed peak genetic ability in the past but because of verbal communication reduced the cost and size of our brains, and as such, increased the survival of our weakest. We don’t know yet.
-
Peak Human?
—“Are there any morphological differences between the brain of a highly intelligent person and a person with average intelligence?”— Three positive factors: 1 – greater neurogenesis 2 – greater neural density 3 – greater white matter (reduced friction) Three negative factors 4 – Lack of defect in biochemistry (or other illness) 5 – Lack of defect in personality trait (brain structure and chemistry) 6 – Lack of defect due to trauma (of any kind). And one less obvious: 7 – False knowledge or beliefs (non-correspondence). Certain sets of ideas are incredibly attractive but entirely destructive to our ability to think. We should note that so far, (as most of us expected) a) intelligence is influenced by a very large number of genes. b) unfortunately most influences are negative not positive. HOWEVER That means: c) that potential intelligence does not require we increase any substantial capacity. d) that potential intelligence can be incrementally increased by cumulative, specific, genetic corrections. AND f) Ot seems likely that intelligence then developed a long time ago by accident but through reproduction we have not been able to produce dominance in intelligence without controlled reproduction (like we do with animals), OR g) Or the innate possibility was there originally and we have actually devolved from it. This hypothesis isn’t as strange as it originally sounds. Its entirely possible that the rapid increases in our ability to communicate produced greater selection pressure on verbal ability than it did intelligence, and we began to function more as a collective (social) intelligence than individually intelligent agents who imitated each other. The relationship between brain size and intelligence isn’t linear but it exists, and we have smaller (less expensive) brains than both Neanderthals and Cro Magnon’s for example. In other words, we might have passed peak genetic ability in the past but because of verbal communication reduced the cost and size of our brains, and as such, increased the survival of our weakest. We don’t know yet.
-
—“Are the far left or the far right more intelligent?”—
I did quite a bit of research on this in the mid 00’s when a number of left leaning surveys were published that I was pretty sure were wrong. They were. (Especially about mental illness, which appears to be a near monopoly on the left because of the dominance of women on the left. Why? Because males demonstrate anti social behavior by criminality and females demonstrate antisocial behavior by psychosis. Hence why a third of american women are on anti-depressants.) Here is the summary: a) Republicans are smarter than democrats.b) Liberals are smarter than conservatives.c) And libertarians are smartest of all. Moreover: d) People vote by moral intuition because they have no other choice under representative first-past-the-post, two party, government. (See “Myth of the Rational Voter”.) e) Men bias to organize by packs (precision at the cost of consensus), and women bias to organize as herd (consensus at the cost of precision). This means men are less likely to pursue consensus, and instead specialize. Hence the relative heterogeneity of the right compared to the relative homogeneity of the left. Ergo democracies always move left until failure while anglo civilization using hoses for the classes merely had civil wars to reorganize the law to include newly productive classes. f) People vote heavily by race and religion, with single white women the only group ‘defecting’. In some sense, single women determine most presidential outcomes for this reason. Without women voters we would never have had a leftist president. (See Pew.) Why? There are very (painfully) obvious reasons: 1 – Advocates use college degrees as a proxy for intelligence without mediating for the IQ distribution of degrees. In other words, a Phd in Education is rated more highly than bachelors degree in engineering or computer science, yet graduates with those degrees possess the inverse IQ relationship. 2 – Women at the lower end of the distribution disproportionately obtain (nonsense) degrees while men simply enter the work force without them. 3 – There are very few liberals, and very many conservatives. There are very few libertarians and very many democrats. In other words, when you compare democrats and republicans that’s categorically the same as comparing libertarians and leftists. The difference is that liberals will have soft degrees and libertarians will have hard (STEM) degrees. But if you mix categories (liberals and conservatives) then you are comparing vastly different distributions by very different criteria.
<- Liberal -- Democrat - independent - Republican -- Libertarian -> <- Female Reproductive Strategy <---> Male Reproductive Strategy ->
That’s why.