I wonder what would happen to boy’s performance in school if we stopped forcing them to memorize, and telling them lies, and instead forced them to repeatedly solve model-problems, and taught them the truth? Sure, girls mature faster than we do, are more interested in pleasing others, are more verbally inclined, and more comfortable sitting still. Sure, boys mature more slowly, are less interested in pleasing as they are discovering limits, are more spatio-physically inclined and it appears that they are brain damaged by sitting still so much. In other words, *boys are more expensive to teach*. But, when we account for outcomes, what is the cost of teaching obeyance, lies, memorization, and sitting still, compared to the cost of teaching how to form hunting parties, the truth of the word, learning by doing, and engaging in action. We all know the answer intuitively – that we have made our western aristocracy into scribes and water-carriers for a deceitful priesthood conducting a genetic, cultural, and territorial war under the ruse of ‘care’ – when it’s just dysgenics warfare.
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
Like All Things, The Cost Of Teaching Lies Includes The Unseen As Well As The Seen.
I wonder what would happen to boy’s performance in school if we stopped forcing them to memorize, and telling them lies, and instead forced them to repeatedly solve model-problems, and taught them the truth? Sure, girls mature faster than we do, are more interested in pleasing others, are more verbally inclined, and more comfortable sitting still. Sure, boys mature more slowly, are less interested in pleasing as they are discovering limits, are more spatio-physically inclined and it appears that they are brain damaged by sitting still so much. In other words, *boys are more expensive to teach*. But, when we account for outcomes, what is the cost of teaching obeyance, lies, memorization, and sitting still, compared to the cost of teaching how to form hunting parties, the truth of the word, learning by doing, and engaging in action. We all know the answer intuitively – that we have made our western aristocracy into scribes and water-carriers for a deceitful priesthood conducting a genetic, cultural, and territorial war under the ruse of ‘care’ – when it’s just dysgenics warfare.
-
Propertarianism Gives Aspies A Language With Which To Discourse With Normals.
[W]orking with the intense-world model of autism, what we ‘aspies’ experience is a lot of localized (intense) but un-integrated phenomenon, and then we try to explain these intense phenomenon to others. Conversely, normals tend to explain the (diluted) single aggregate experience without having visibility into the (intense) localized phenomenon. It’s much easier for them to communicate the RESULTING experience that we DON”T have, than it is for us to communicate the SET of experiences we DO have. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for us, and therefore fortunately for all of us, just as we cannot inspect how we move our limbs – they just move, normals cannot inspect how they obtain those aggregates. We can inspect how we obtain those aggregates at the cost of losing the ability to communicate in aggregates. Or put differently, we speak in much higher information density with higher causal relation. They speak in lower information density with higher experiential description. One of the things I feel most proud of is giving us (intense world thinkers) a language that lets us communicate WITHOUT Experiential loading, in a language that while wordy is comprehensible both to us and to normals. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
Propertarianism Gives Aspies A Language With Which To Discourse With Normals.
[W]orking with the intense-world model of autism, what we ‘aspies’ experience is a lot of localized (intense) but un-integrated phenomenon, and then we try to explain these intense phenomenon to others. Conversely, normals tend to explain the (diluted) single aggregate experience without having visibility into the (intense) localized phenomenon. It’s much easier for them to communicate the RESULTING experience that we DON”T have, than it is for us to communicate the SET of experiences we DO have. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for us, and therefore fortunately for all of us, just as we cannot inspect how we move our limbs – they just move, normals cannot inspect how they obtain those aggregates. We can inspect how we obtain those aggregates at the cost of losing the ability to communicate in aggregates. Or put differently, we speak in much higher information density with higher causal relation. They speak in lower information density with higher experiential description. One of the things I feel most proud of is giving us (intense world thinkers) a language that lets us communicate WITHOUT Experiential loading, in a language that while wordy is comprehensible both to us and to normals. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
Smartness vs Genius
There is a big difference between smartness and genius. I consider quite a few people smarter than I am in this dimension or that – and I think it’s related to their ability to master things like chess, chemistry, and mathematics, using axiomatic systems to permute applications of rules within the limits of the game. In other words, those people that live in a world of proofs I consider smart.
I suppose I COULD work in that field, but axiomatic thought is a very different way of thinking from theoretic. In my world there are no rules, there is only information and order. To some degree I see all rules as errors, or contrivances, the same way I see legislation and norms.
Unlike the axiomatic mind, the theoretical mind does not work with boundaries at all, but with creating new orders in order to break through the boundaries that limit us.
This, I think, is the difference between the techniques of deviant and cunning, moral and wise, axiomatic and smart, theoretical and genius. Some of us cunningly circumvent rules, some morally work within them, some us axiomatically think of new ways to apply them, and some of us theoretically think of new organization of rules – all of us using slightly different methods of decidability.
Intelligence can be applied using cunning (immoral), moral (wise), axiomatic (smart), and theoretical (genius) methods. I think this is the correct framing of a problem where we generally confuse ourselves through conflation, and allows us to consider ethics and methods of thought as separate axis.
-
Smartness vs Genius
There is a big difference between smartness and genius. I consider quite a few people smarter than I am in this dimension or that – and I think it’s related to their ability to master things like chess, chemistry, and mathematics, using axiomatic systems to permute applications of rules within the limits of the game. In other words, those people that live in a world of proofs I consider smart.
I suppose I COULD work in that field, but axiomatic thought is a very different way of thinking from theoretic. In my world there are no rules, there is only information and order. To some degree I see all rules as errors, or contrivances, the same way I see legislation and norms.
Unlike the axiomatic mind, the theoretical mind does not work with boundaries at all, but with creating new orders in order to break through the boundaries that limit us.
This, I think, is the difference between the techniques of deviant and cunning, moral and wise, axiomatic and smart, theoretical and genius. Some of us cunningly circumvent rules, some morally work within them, some us axiomatically think of new ways to apply them, and some of us theoretically think of new organization of rules – all of us using slightly different methods of decidability.
Intelligence can be applied using cunning (immoral), moral (wise), axiomatic (smart), and theoretical (genius) methods. I think this is the correct framing of a problem where we generally confuse ourselves through conflation, and allows us to consider ethics and methods of thought as separate axis.
-
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 15:44:00 UTC
-
“What’s your best advice for picking up women?”— Lift. Preen. Play a team spor
—“What’s your best advice for picking up women?”—
Lift. Preen. Play a team sport no matter how lame. Read a book a month. And make a sound like money.
(“Be the flame, not the moth.”)
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 08:36:00 UTC
-
(5).. To alleviate the pain of alienation, loneliness, uncertainty. So our effor
… (5).. To alleviate the pain of alienation, loneliness, uncertainty. So our effort at reducing people per household failed.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 08:12:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781768739859595264
Reply addressees: @JoshZumbrun
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781157309145686016
IN REPLY TO:
@JoshZumbrun
This is one of the most horrifying graphics I’ve ever seen:
https://t.co/wM0VJZn0Wg https://t.co/qaUaNFtRPlOriginal post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781157309145686016
-
5) people are turning to chemical drugs, consumption as a drug, entertainment as
5) people are turning to chemical drugs, consumption as a drug, entertainment as a drug, information as a drug, …
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 08:11:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781768457587220480
Reply addressees: @JoshZumbrun
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781157309145686016
IN REPLY TO:
@JoshZumbrun
This is one of the most horrifying graphics I’ve ever seen:
https://t.co/wM0VJZn0Wg https://t.co/qaUaNFtRPlOriginal post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781157309145686016