(I have had the same experience, but the difference is, that as a male, we are often happy to compete rather than conform. So as she describes herself as a bleeding heart liberal – in other words has the intuitions of a female – I ended up the opposite specializing in competition and natural law – with the intuitions of a male. As far as I know the autism spectrum increases the distance between our intuitions and our reason for what appear to be extremely trivial reasons in the early neural economy – but that has had zero impact on how we decide those questions that are solved only by intuition: by rather than reason. Women think like women do, and men think like men do, because our competing gender reproductive strategies evolved prior to our use of reason, and almost certainly before our development of consciousness. There is a difference between the male and female brain structure due to the development of that distance, but there is also a difference between the male and female structure due to endocrine influences. But we can still observe that we see both genders with both reproductive, social and cognitive biases each varying along the male and female axis of development.)
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
(I have had the same experience, but the difference is, that as a male, we are o
(I have had the same experience, but the difference is, that as a male, we are often happy to compete rather than conform. So as she describes herself as a bleeding heart liberal – in other words has the intuitions of a female – I ended up the opposite specializing in competition and natural law – with the intuitions of a male. As far as I know the autism spectrum increases the distance between our intuitions and our reason for what appear to be extremely trivial reasons in the early neural economy – but that has had zero impact on how we decide those questions that are solved only by intuition: by rather than reason. Women think like women do, and men think like men do, because our competing gender reproductive strategies evolved prior to our use of reason, and almost certainly before our development of consciousness. There is a difference between the male and female brain structure due to the development of that distance, but there is also a difference between the male and female structure due to endocrine influences. But we can still observe that we see both genders with both reproductive, social and cognitive biases each varying along the male and female axis of development.) -
(I have had the same experience, but the difference is, that as a male, we are o
(I have had the same experience, but the difference is, that as a male, we are often happy to compete rather than conform. So as she describes herself as a bleeding heart liberal – in other words has the intuitions of a female – I ended up the opposite specializing in competition and natural law – with the intuitions of a male. As far as I know the autism spectrum increases the distance between our intuitions and our reason for what appear to be extremely trivial reasons in the early neural economy – but that has had zero impact on how we decide those questions that are solved only by intuition: by rather than reason. Women think like women do, and men think like men do, because our competing gender reproductive strategies evolved prior to our use of reason, and almost certainly before our development of consciousness. There is a difference between the male and female brain structure due to the development of that distance, but there is also a difference between the male and female structure due to endocrine influences. But we can still observe that we see both genders with both reproductive, social and cognitive biases each varying along the male and female axis of development.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 14:18:00 UTC
-
1) Understanding is overrated, because (a) few people understand,(b) the rest ei
1) Understanding is overrated, because (a) few people understand,(b) the rest either ignore it,(c) justify it,or (d) aggressively oppose it and pursue their bet interests anyway.Hence communication and understanding fails and authoring and enforcing law succeeds. @jordanpeterson
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 13:40:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975366400767295488
-
An Example Of Testimonial Prose
–“the left and right both argue for inclusion but along different lines.”– A Friend Dysgenic expansion on the left (female), vs eugenic expansion on the right (male) Female and male strategies compete. Or perhaps ‘adapt’ is a better way of looking at it. So ‘along different lines’ obscure that those lines are not ‘relative’ but produce vastly different externalities. This is an example why I use operational langauge and full accounting – I don’t leave obscurant statements un accounted for. Testimonialism: 1 – Operational Language (Operations are measurements) 2 – Deflated vocabular tested by series. 3 – Complete Sentences describing complete transactions. 4 – Testing Rational Choice, and Reciprocity 5 – Accounting for the seen (internal) and unseen (external). By simple use of operational grammar (the rules I just stated) we test categorical, logical, empirical, existential, rational, reciprocal, fully accounted prose just a surely as we test any statement in other logics and mathematics. In other words, just as all other forms of calculation falsify but do not justify, operational grammar falsified but does not justify. The only difference is that operational grammar is complete in that it includes all actionable dimensions of reality, not some subset or general rule of reality. If one cannot make such a statement in operational language he knows not of what he speaks. He just uses convention and habit like any other storyteller. -
AN EXAMPLE OF TESTIMONIAL PROSE –“the left and right both argue for inclusion b
AN EXAMPLE OF TESTIMONIAL PROSE
–“the left and right both argue for inclusion but along different lines.”– A Friend
Dysgenic expansion on the left (female), vs eugenic expansion on the right (male)
Female and male strategies compete. Or perhaps ‘adapt’ is a better way of looking at it.
So ‘along different lines’ obscure that those lines are not ‘relative’ but produce vastly different externalities.
This is an example why I use operational langauge and full accounting – I don’t leave obscurant statements un accounted for.
Testimonialism:
1 – Operational Language (Operations are measurements)
2 – Deflated vocabular tested by series.
3 – Complete Sentences describing complete transactions.
4 – Testing Rational Choice, and Reciprocity
5 – Accounting for the seen (internal) and unseen (external).
By simple use of operational grammar (the rules I just stated) we test categorical, logical, empirical, existential, rational, reciprocal, fully accounted prose just a surely as we test any statement in other logics and mathematics.
In other words, just as all other forms of calculation falsify but do not justify, operational grammar falsified but does not justify.
The only difference is that operational grammar is complete in that it includes all actionable dimensions of reality, not some subset or general rule of reality.
If one cannot make such a statement in operational language he knows not of what he speaks. He just uses convention and habit like any other storyteller.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 13:09:00 UTC
-
Peterson Explained:
He is attempting (unconsciously) to restore Stoicism (Self authoring) while also restoring mythology because of the correlation between our intuitions (biology) and archetypes (narratives). In this sense he is reforming religion from supernatural to scientific. We all carry our class, culture, and religion with us. We don’t know how much of it is genetic, and how much learned. It’s probably like all else, more genetic than we wish to admit. We all intuit man as between Rousseau’s and Hobbes’ vision. The evidence is ‘neither’. Pinker intuits closer to rousseau and is optimistic, Peterson more towards Smith, and Pessimistic. These are assessments and intuitons not evidentiary truths. If we look at history, man is amoral: moral(reciprocal) immoral (irreciprocal) as suits him. We have just made it increasingly costly to prefer immorality (free riding, parasitism, predation) over morality (voluntary, fully informed, productive exchange). And as such vastly increased the time man devotes to moral activity, and the disproportionate returns on trade. -
Peterson Explained:
He is attempting (unconsciously) to restore Stoicism (Self authoring) while also restoring mythology because of the correlation between our intuitions (biology) and archetypes (narratives). In this sense he is reforming religion from supernatural to scientific. We all carry our class, culture, and religion with us. We don’t know how much of it is genetic, and how much learned. It’s probably like all else, more genetic than we wish to admit. We all intuit man as between Rousseau’s and Hobbes’ vision. The evidence is ‘neither’. Pinker intuits closer to rousseau and is optimistic, Peterson more towards Smith, and Pessimistic. These are assessments and intuitons not evidentiary truths. If we look at history, man is amoral: moral(reciprocal) immoral (irreciprocal) as suits him. We have just made it increasingly costly to prefer immorality (free riding, parasitism, predation) over morality (voluntary, fully informed, productive exchange). And as such vastly increased the time man devotes to moral activity, and the disproportionate returns on trade. -
PETERSON EXPLAINED: He is attempting (unconsciously) to restore Stoicism (Self a
PETERSON EXPLAINED:
He is attempting (unconsciously) to restore Stoicism (Self authoring) while also restoring mythology because of the correlation between our intuitions (biology) and archetypes (narratives). In this sense he is reforming religion from supernatural to scientific.
We all carry our class, culture, and religion with us. We don’t know how much of it is genetic, and how much learned. It’s probably like all else, more genetic than we wish to admit. We all intuit man as between Rousseau’s and Hobbes’ vision. The evidence is ‘neither’.
Pinker intuits closer to rousseau and is optimistic, Peterson more towards Smith, and Pessimistic. These are assessments and intuitons not evidentiary truths. If we look at history, man is amoral: moral(reciprocal) immoral (irreciprocal) as suits him.
We have just made it increasingly costly to prefer immorality (free riding, parasitism, predation) over morality (voluntary, fully informed, productive exchange). And as such vastly increased the time man devotes to moral activity, and the disproportionate returns on trade.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 12:37:00 UTC
-
Have You Met Anyone Truly Evil? What Makes Them Evil According To You?
“Yes, my dear, there is evil in this world.”
Every person who does evil, does not do so because he thinks he is evil, but because he thinks his actions are warranted – either via punishment, retribution, restitution, profit, or some version of ‘getting his or her fair share’ (which is the justification we make for most of our crimes.)
Even serial killers justify their actions. Mothers justify their criminal sons and daughters. Each of us justifies our indiscretions from the most petty to the most horrid by one excuse or another.
Was Mao Evil? Was Stalin? Was Mohammed? They are the greatest murderers in history – with the total murders of the communists at more than 100M and the total murders of the Muslims over 500M. Yet they are heroes to some, and in their minds, preventing an even worse bad (they were just wrong).
Humans are rational actors, and super predators – the most successful super predators on earth. We are gracious, moral, ethical, cooperative, criminal, unethical, immoral, and evil as we see fit.
YES I KNOW SOME EVIL PEOPLE
1) I grew up in a farm community fighting with a boy named Bobby Lee on a very regular basis, and the best I could do was pin him and exhaust him. He was dangerous. He grew up to be an arsonist, then a drug dealer, then a stalker, and a double-murderer. The police shot him dead. As any career policeman will tell you “you know by the age of seven who will turn out bad”. And it’s true.
2) I know a business man (actually a family) that knowingly engaged in Churning resulting in dozens of families losing everything they owned. (I assisted in his prosecution for racketeering).
3) I know a business man who forged (I turned him into the justice department) legal documents in order to collect money for elderly and their relatives, and keep it.
4) I know a business man who would use legal extortion, including the most egregious, which was buying a sliver of land next to a child care building, and filing for a permit for housing sexual predators, in order to force the child care company to purchase the land at multiples. (We obtained evidence and turned him into the IRS.)
5) We all know the (unnamed) fellow who just acquired a patent for a necessary medicine and raised the price dramatically. (He has been prosecuted)
6) I know a disproportionate number of lawyers and finance people who prey upon well intentioned honorable people in hardship situations. These people are evil (and they get away with it.) I could name them but it would do no good. (this includes a lawyer who fabricated testimony on behalf of his client in a divorce proceeding).
7) I know a series of venture capitalists that attempt to organize bad deals so that they can upend and take over a company for pennies, and either sell it or strip it of income. More often than not, this is the case.
8) The top merger and acquisitions law firm in the country regularly counseled my board on means by which to screw shareholders, and actively worked against the interests of shareholders in favor of a minority investor.
9 ) I know people in the ‘global warming’ movement who engage in misrepresentation of data in order to expand the bureaucracy, and create long term rent seeking jobs for themselves.
10) There are an absurd number of people in the IRS who perform such heinous crimes against ordinary citizens who make rational mistakes, and ruin them on a regular basis. I know one in particular that takes pleasure in it. She looks for opportunities to take our her envy on others.
11) I know a certain trial lawyer who only takes death penalty cases, and I can’t even bear know about the people he defends. If you meet any criminal with an IQ under 85, a combination of undesirable personality traits, (more than 3% of the population) and any sort of resentment they are not so much evil as nothing but evil in everything that they think, feel and do.
12) I know a certain famous economist that does nothing except try to destroy western civilization at every opportunity, out of pure hatred for it in every bone in his body.
That doesn’t even begin to touch it. Evil is everywhere. And the most evil people are the self righteous who desire something of others because they feel they are due it.
Now, I can’t tell you what most of these people have in common, because I would be banned for saying it – but all of them are very similar in one respect.
I hate to say this because I am a long term 1%’er, and I believe in creating wealth, and in my experience Small Business owners and the working class are most honest people. But the legal, financial, government employee, and political classes are about as corrupt and evil as any class of people who ever lived, and if we burned them all at the stake we would live in a far better world.
If only because everyone that followed after them would understand the consequences.
So yes, there is evil in this world.
https://www.quora.com/Have-you-met-anyone-truly-evil-What-makes-them-evil-according-to-you