–“High IQ was given to us so that we can rationalize bad behavior”–Youssef Khanjari
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 09:25:00 UTC
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
IS NOT MORAL OR IMMORAL BUT RATIONAL (worth repeating)
https://propertarianism.com/2016/10/07/man-is-merely-rational/MAN IS NOT MORAL OR IMMORAL BUT RATIONAL
(worth repeating)
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 08:13:00 UTC
-
Steven Pinker (@sapinker): The sociological religion of no biological difference
https://t.co/pYojn9neOXRetweeted Steven Pinker (@sapinker):
The sociological religion of no biological differences between the sexes « Why Evolution Is True
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 06:54:00 UTC
-
RT @charlesmurray: This could get to be a problem, evolution-wise
RT @charlesmurray: This could get to be a problem, evolution-wise. https://twitter.com/Burzenland/status/788414772962168832
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-19 23:01:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/788877659174559744
-
A steel machete if pointed, sharpened, even primitively on a grinding wheel, is
A steel machete if pointed, sharpened, even primitively on a grinding wheel, is a an exceptional relatively invisible weapon. With one in the left hand, inverted as a shield, and a second held point forward, it is very capable pair of weapons. Add a motorcycle helmet and some football pads, and you’re pretty dangerous hand-to-hand. Especially in formation. A row of spearmen behind using broomstick handles with butcher knives attached, and a bit of rope nailed on here and there for grip, and now it’s getting difficult to close on you. A row of men with molotovs behind and now you’ve got a retreat mechanism, or the ability to attack buildings. A set of runners who replenish the molotovs – throwing them is a skill, so use skilled throwers like skilled archers – and so use runners to keep them busy. None of this costs any real money.
I watched men making shields out of steel plate during the revolution. They set-up shop right inside one of the captured bulidings. They won’t stop a rifle bullet. But they force the government to use rifle bullets against you – and thus invalidate themselves.
You can however, buy shields that will, and it’s possible for a host of men to hide behind five of them if they hit the ground, and aren’t vulnerable from multiple sides.
The strategy is to use these men to attract police in force, to oppose them, and then to use rifles from a distance to take out the police in large numbers once they’re in the open.
Bait power, and kill it. Until there is no power left to bait. Or no power willing to take the bait. And once you have freedom of movement, you have won.
Soldiers return to barracks. politicians and police return to homes. In ukraine, men followed them home. You must only exhaust their willingness to fight. Most men will flee if they lost ten percent of their corps. Police are no different.
The goal is not to gain control. But to face the military to take control. It is in their interest at present to take control. They need only the opportunity and justification. So we must remove the option not to take control.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-19 12:55:00 UTC
-
“The adaptation – excessive resistance to killing other humans – is that humans
—“The adaptation – excessive resistance to killing other humans – is that humans are dangerous predators that retaliate at high cost to themselves, whereas other creatures do not retaliate at high cost to themselves, they simply avoid taking the risk again. So we evolved for rational reasons, to both retaliate and to avoid retaliation. So it is retaliation humans fear regarding each other, and not regarding beasts. Most creatures flee losses, but humans and chimps reinforce losses purely for defensive reasons.”— Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 09:36:00 UTC
-
“This is a problem of extending in group loyalty to all humans. Human genes are
—“This is a problem of extending in group loyalty to all humans. Human genes are only valuable should they be closely related to your own or at least not destructive to your own.
As an emotionally relatable example the cockroach works well. I kill the roach not because I hate the roach, I kill it not for the sake of killing but because it poses some danger to me. I kill the rabbits in my garden not for any hatred of rabbits but because they are destructive to my ends. I kill the deer not because I enjoy hurting it but because it is made of food.
But when we get to those who posses human genes or even humanish form (dicks out for Harambe) there is something in the human mind, whether genetic or memetic I’m not sure, that is repulsed by killing. It may be that this trait was adaptive in that any costs imposed on me by others are less than the costs imposed by the results of humans not being repulsed by killing other humans, even those unrelated to them.”— Ben B. Rodríguez
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-18 09:32:00 UTC
-
(My sister is a school teacher. Patient. Methodical. Creative. Watching her work
(My sister is a school teacher. Patient. Methodical. Creative. Watching her work I see the similarity in cognitive processing. She works pretty continuously. She searches for new ideas. Does her research. Thinks them through. Tests them against experience. And never considers learning ‘done’. Which is something I think separates persistent people from those who are too desirous of outcomes rather than processes of continuous improvement. Family members are good tools for learning about yourself. Anyway, the difference between us is just one of scale. The process is the same. And I can’t say that for everyone. There is something different about people who think ‘what don’t I know’ from those who think in terms of ‘what I know’. Maybe it’s some sort of insecurity or paranoia at first. Or maybe it comes from being younger than your peers, or surrounded by adults. But there is definitely a difference in how some of us exercise our minds. What can I do, versus what can’t I do and why? What do I know versus what don’t I know and what can I do about it? Why do you think that, and why do i think this, and what can I do to decide? This is the essence of ‘seek to understand’. Most people seek something rather short term by comparison. Like whether they like it or approve of it, whether it’s useful or not, whether they agree or not, whether they understand or not, whether they want to pay the cost of it or not. But there is a group of us who just remain confident that we don’t ‘know’ anything so to speak so much as that we’re continuously learning what does and doesn’t work. And that this learning is our ‘entertainment’. So that we simply experience far more hours of thought on any subject than others do. And really, whether you’re terribly bright or not is not quite as important (except on the margins) as whether you just stick with something long enough to become an expert in it to such a degree that there are very few others with your level of expertise. we are rewarded in life for the number of masteries we accumulate. mastery is valuable. But it takes lots of time.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-17 13:36:00 UTC
-
Morals Reflect Genetic Distance
MORALS ARE NOT RELATIVE, BUT REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true. But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict. We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict. that means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution.
There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges in matters of conflict. It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition. We may not like this but then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances. We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on. The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability. But those differences remain decidable. Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another. -
Morals Reflect Genetic Distance
MORALS ARE NOT RELATIVE, BUT REFLECT GENETIC DISTANCE We can and do certainly possess different moral biases, and we can and do certainly possess normative moral biases. This is true. But that does not mean that moral differences are not decidable in matters of conflict. We can use moral biases to seek allies. We can trade across moral biases when we have common interests. And we can decide moral between moral biases when we are in conflict. that means that there exist an objectively decidable morality, but that each of us requires reproductive moral allies, uses moral competitors when necessary, and resorts to objective morality in matters of conflict resolution.
There is no such thing as moral relativism. We possess moral biases, both genetic, familial, and normative. We seek allies, trading partners, and judges in matters of conflict. It is entirely possible to judge within families, within norms, within trading partners, and within competitors, by objective, scientific, rational means: natural law of non-imposition. We may not like this but then knowing that such decidability exists at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor ‘distances’ requires us only to understand the criteria at the familial, normative, trade, and competitor distances. We sacrifice for kin and competitors will not bear sacrifice. We need not benefit from kin but we must benefit from trading partners. And so on. The greater the genetic and moral distance the more objective the criteria of decidability. But those differences remain decidable. Why? Because the only by which we can escape retaliation and preserve cooperation is that of the non-imposition of costs upon one another.