It’s called Paedomorphic Evolution: Genetic Pacification selecting for lower maturity – the “juvenile”. One of which is Gracilization: loss of bone mass. The ‘strange’ sexual interests of the Japanese (and the asians) and our men’s attraction to Asian women, is very likely due to the greater paedomorphism of the asians and the lower levels of testosterone. The east and the west have been engaging in genetic pacification over a long long time. The rest of the world has not. Because they were unable to reduce the bottom population.
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
The more sensible you are (a) the more questions people ask you, and (b) the mor
The more sensible you are (a) the more questions people ask you, and (b) the more stuff they ask you to do. Yet the more sense you make, (c) the greater the number of people are intimidated by and (d) avoid you. Once you start to make enough sense that you’re not providing discounts, but imposing costs, they quickly learn to be careful around you, and will only selectively employ your abilities.
(h/t Josh Jeppeson)
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-08 07:42:00 UTC
-
Man Is Merely Rational
Man is rational. He engages in predation when it suits him, parasitism when it is possible, cooperation when it is preferable, and flight when it is necessary. Thankfully, through organizing our efforts into myth, ritual, habit, norm, and law, we can raise the cost of predation and parasitism high enough so that man chooses cooperation or flight more often than parasitism or predation. Our deprivation of his opportunity for parasitism and predation do not change the nature of man – because man is rational. We simply eliminate those less able to cooperate and produce, and provide disincentives to those that remain, thereby creating an imbalance of incentives and proclivity for cooperation and production.
-
Man Is Merely Rational
Man is rational. He engages in predation when it suits him, parasitism when it is possible, cooperation when it is preferable, and flight when it is necessary. Thankfully, through organizing our efforts into myth, ritual, habit, norm, and law, we can raise the cost of predation and parasitism high enough so that man chooses cooperation or flight more often than parasitism or predation. Our deprivation of his opportunity for parasitism and predation do not change the nature of man – because man is rational. We simply eliminate those less able to cooperate and produce, and provide disincentives to those that remain, thereby creating an imbalance of incentives and proclivity for cooperation and production.
-
The Origins of the Left’s Effeminate R-Selection Bias
I think what is abhorrent to leftists is that business and productivity are innately competitive and consist of attempting to outwit other tribes of males for market territory. This is antithetical to the r-selection instincts of females and their effeminate offspring and the sexually inverted ((( tribes ))).
In their world they cannot compete and seek consensus and non-conflict and reciprocality. They do not see competition as calculation by trial and error of efficiencies in the interest of all. They sense only the short term experience rather than judge long term consequences. Hence why we must never take the feminine or effeminate opinion seriously. It is a temporal blindness and a moral blindness just like Color blindness. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine -
The Origins of the Left’s Effeminate R-Selection Bias
I think what is abhorrent to leftists is that business and productivity are innately competitive and consist of attempting to outwit other tribes of males for market territory. This is antithetical to the r-selection instincts of females and their effeminate offspring and the sexually inverted ((( tribes ))).
In their world they cannot compete and seek consensus and non-conflict and reciprocality. They do not see competition as calculation by trial and error of efficiencies in the interest of all. They sense only the short term experience rather than judge long term consequences. Hence why we must never take the feminine or effeminate opinion seriously. It is a temporal blindness and a moral blindness just like Color blindness. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine -
The Rational Risk Pursuit And Aversion Of Genders
(By Eli Harman) —” While there certainly can be exceptions, in general, women are going to be more risk averse and men more risk tolerant. That’s a sensible risk management strategy. If a man fails, (in contrast to a woman) the individual consequences may be severe, but the consequences to the group are less severe, because a man doesn’t have a uterus. On the other end, men can’t afford NOT to take risks because they have to *demonstrate* value, and if they don’t, they’ll be left behind by men who do.
Women, on the other hand, can afford not to take risks, because their uterii automatically give them some value, and so they’re usually better off playing it safe. So this division of risk-taking makes evolutionary sense for all parties. The problem comes when women attempt to IMPOSE their risk aversion on men as well, and this prevents men, not just from failing, but also from succeeding. And so it’s basically pointless even having men under those conditions, because they’re only women without uterii. And it prevents women from sharing in the successes that men can only obtain by taking risks. But this condition is unstable, because that society will be highly susceptible to revolt or conquest by aggressive, risk-taking, males. (Think “Demolition Man.”) And when push comes to shove, the effeminate males will simply be killed, and the risk-averse women will fold to save themselves.”— -
The Rational Risk Pursuit And Aversion Of Genders
(By Eli Harman) —” While there certainly can be exceptions, in general, women are going to be more risk averse and men more risk tolerant. That’s a sensible risk management strategy. If a man fails, (in contrast to a woman) the individual consequences may be severe, but the consequences to the group are less severe, because a man doesn’t have a uterus. On the other end, men can’t afford NOT to take risks because they have to *demonstrate* value, and if they don’t, they’ll be left behind by men who do.
Women, on the other hand, can afford not to take risks, because their uterii automatically give them some value, and so they’re usually better off playing it safe. So this division of risk-taking makes evolutionary sense for all parties. The problem comes when women attempt to IMPOSE their risk aversion on men as well, and this prevents men, not just from failing, but also from succeeding. And so it’s basically pointless even having men under those conditions, because they’re only women without uterii. And it prevents women from sharing in the successes that men can only obtain by taking risks. But this condition is unstable, because that society will be highly susceptible to revolt or conquest by aggressive, risk-taking, males. (Think “Demolition Man.”) And when push comes to shove, the effeminate males will simply be killed, and the risk-averse women will fold to save themselves.”— -
The Best Way To Cull The Bottom Appears To Be To Leave Them Behind And Move Away
—“East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) obtain the highest mean IQ at 105. Europeans follow with an IQ of 100. Some ways below these are the Inuit or Eskimos (IQ 91), South East Asians (IQ 87), Native American Indians (IQ 87), Pacific Islanders (IQ 85), and South Asians and North Africans (IQ 84). Well below these are the sub-Saharan Africans (IQ 67), the Australian Aborigines (IQ 62), the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert, and the Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54).”—
-
The Best Way To Cull The Bottom Appears To Be To Leave Them Behind And Move Away
—“East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) obtain the highest mean IQ at 105. Europeans follow with an IQ of 100. Some ways below these are the Inuit or Eskimos (IQ 91), South East Asians (IQ 87), Native American Indians (IQ 87), Pacific Islanders (IQ 85), and South Asians and North Africans (IQ 84). Well below these are the sub-Saharan Africans (IQ 67), the Australian Aborigines (IQ 62), the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert, and the Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54).”—