http://qz.com/403508/men-are-committing-suicide-more-than-women-everywhere-in-the-world-why/
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-22 01:35:00 UTC
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
ENSURING THE LOSERS Cooperation is preserved by insuring ‘losers’. But if losers
ENSURING THE LOSERS
Cooperation is preserved by insuring ‘losers’. But if losers claim insurance, they are by that demonstration not able to engage in reproduction beyond one child. Asking our best women to have four children, and asking our dependent women to have one child, and prohibiting underclass immigration is the only means of genetic pacification and gradual eugenics that we need participate in if we are to build the high trust society. This ensures everyone against the vicissitudes of nature, but does not propagate ‘errors’ (defects).
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-17 02:02:00 UTC
-
LYING IS OBVIOUS. I can’t read a lot of subtle emotions in facial expressions. B
LYING IS OBVIOUS.
I can’t read a lot of subtle emotions in facial expressions. But by contrast, I can read lying at a glance. The only people who can fool me are those who overload me with distractions (I know a few women who can do that.)
Two ‘investors’ this morning. Coffee. One american, one german. Their body language was “i am prepared to lie”. Then the american lied first. They also signaled two things that people with money don’t: they’re too old to be doing discovery that’s an analysts job, and they’re not healthy looking from either alcohol, smoking, or stress – none of which say they are in control of their lives.
Signals matter.
( It also explains to me some of the subconscious stress I have in Ukraine. )
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-12 06:15:00 UTC
-
ROTHBARDIAN FALLACY OF RACE –“race is a lousy proxy for violence”– This is emp
ROTHBARDIAN FALLACY OF RACE
–“race is a lousy proxy for violence”–
This is empirically false in every walk of life. The reason being that the different tribes within each race have been asymmetrically successful in genetic pacification, with westerners the most successful, followed by the Japanese and Chinese. So empirically race IS an empirical signal of criminality. (Hence “The Talk”.)
In criminality – roughly speaking impulsivity and aggression and IQ determine potential criminality, although with increases in IQ, the impulsive and the aggressive merely change tactics from physical, to deceitful, to conspiratorial. In the market for goods and services all people are the color of money – although different populations are of higher risk and cost than others because of genetic pacification.
In politics people act as competing and hostile blocks each seeking higher status and privilege. This is a universally demonstrable practice since status signaling and self perception of status is the innate accounting system of mankind.
So in the market for goods and services, it is irrational to treat an individual by the properties of his class or race , and conversely it is rational in politics and social science to treat a class or race by the properties of its individuals. Because individuals act as blocks in politics. That’s the domain of politics. Just as individuals act as individuals in the market. That is the domain of the market.
Rothbardian Libertarianism is an excuse for taking discounts, just as socialism is an excuse for involuntary transfer and dysgenic reproduction. Just as neo-conservatism is an excuse for forcing costs of expansion and conquest upon others.
There are no free rides. The only liberty possible is constructed by reciprocal insurance against parasitism by the promise of organized violence to suppress it, thereby forcing all humans into the market for production distribution and trade, and forcing all humans to save for their unproductive years.
**Liberty: Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. Every man a warrior. This is the only know means of constructing liberty.**
NO MORE LIES. THE TRUTH IS ENOUGH.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-10 02:54:00 UTC
-
SHAMING IS ONLY EFFECTIVE IF MEN CARE Men require an incentive to care about wom
SHAMING IS ONLY EFFECTIVE IF MEN CARE
Men require an incentive to care about women and society. If women fail to provide men with that incentive under relative liberty, men will cease suppressing their desires for the benefit of women and society. If women fail to provide men with that incentive under relative illiberty, then they will force women into submissive roles. These are empirical statements and constant throughout history. There is no free lunch for women. There is no feminist utopia. The compromise between the genders that is the family is the result of the evolutionary game theory: it is the best option available for both genders, even if it is not the best for either gender. So, a few of us may ‘cheat’ the compromise and get away with it. But if enough of us cheat the compromise it will break. If it breaks we end up with either men enforcing it, or conquest by those that do. Civilization may be constructed almost entirely by men, but the INCENTIVE to produce civilization is provided by women. That is because for the alpha males, who are the world’s greatest super-predator’s. War, Raiding, Fighting, Pillaging, Stealing and Raping are preferable and enjoyable activities.
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-10 02:04:00 UTC
-
MORE PEAK HUMAN yes, been doing a bit of research and it’s starting to come toge
MORE PEAK HUMAN
yes, been doing a bit of research and it’s starting to come together.
Whig history bites again.
Falsification wins again.
The problem is culling defects consistently and selecting for the amplification of existing traits, not the accumulation of beneficial mutations.
In retrospect it is really obvious.
We have passed peak human.
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-08 15:37:00 UTC
-
( I am absolutely certain the guy sitting in the chair next to me is an axe murd
( I am absolutely certain the guy sitting in the chair next to me is an axe murderer. He gives the serious creeps. If you notice that some someone gives you the creeps, then they generally give you the creeps for good reason. Now some people give you the creeps because you don’t understand them. Some people give you the creeps because they are merely incompetent. Some people give you the creeps because they can create discomfort, and some people give you the creeps because they are dangerous. And some people give you the creeps because they are serial killers. (I mean he’s Russian, so he comes by both ‘creepy’ and ‘dangerous’ honestly, I’m sure. 😉 ) But … this guy is somewhere near the end of that hierarchy of creepiness where he is charming enough to barely fit into society and creepy enough to eat your liver with fava beans, and sing chick pop while putting your body parts in plastic bags. The staff treats him cautiously and at arms length and they suggested I move to another table to be ‘more comfortable’. In exchange he offered me a cigar – for breakfast. lol. )
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-08 03:51:00 UTC
-
AS REACTIONS TO VARIOUS FORMS OF ACQUISITION OR LOSS If you try to catalog emoti
http://robinnixon.com/…/uploads/2011/10/Plutchik.pngEMOTIONS AS REACTIONS TO VARIOUS FORMS OF ACQUISITION OR LOSS
If you try to catalog emotions (experiences), that’s been done. (see http://robinnixon.com/…/uploads/2011/10/Plutchik.png).
If you want to map those emotions to physical drives that’s been done (dominance/submission, excitement-acquisition/rest-conservation, pleasure/pain, arousal-attraction/rejection-disgust) (I can’t remember the author at this moment)
If you want to map morality I think that’s been done (haidt- moral foundations)
If you want to map morality to property (acquisitiveness) I’ve done that: (http://www.propertarianism.com/…/moral-foundations-as…/ )
The open question is how to transform the full set of rich emotions into propertarian statements and therefore connect them with reproductive necessity (or utility).
I haven’t gone through them all but it’s not that difficult to restructure the graphic. (I just honestly have to be in the mood to do it.)
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 06:27:00 UTC
-
Feminism is a means of attention seeking by those unworthy of attention
Feminism is a means of attention seeking by those unworthy of attention.
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 01:02:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629095190742044672
Reply addressees: @RuffEdgeDesign @AliceTeller @FormerlyFormer
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628235425996480512
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628235425996480512
-
THE COSTLY FEMININE EXPERIENCE OF REALITY AND THE INSUFFICIENCY OF OUR LANGUAGE
THE COSTLY FEMININE EXPERIENCE OF REALITY AND THE INSUFFICIENCY OF OUR LANGUAGE
(worth repeating)(revised and expanded)
It is extremely difficult to translate subjective experiential feminine language into rational and scientific masculine language. Which is something that is often agonized over by feminist philosophers. One of the things I like about propertarianism is that it is possible to translate feminine experiential language into a neutral medium.
But it is impossible to capture the fact that emotions are COSTLY for women and their reactions UNCONTROLLABLE or overwhelming. So while we see women as absurd creatures it is because we do not appreciate the effort and therefore the cost that women feel they bear in managing them.
Our language, developed largely for men, and by men, does not account for this burden. I think if it did, it would go a long way to improving inter-gender understanding of the vast differences between the male and female experiences of life that are not captured in our language.
That does not mean we should tolerate the diminution of our language into postmodern or worse devolutions, but it does me that we should develop a language for the rational description of the female experience so that we are aware of their costs.
Because of this high cost of emotions, women use verbal deceits to morally justify the transfer of emotional costs from the self to the rest of society.
Meanwhile, men, who have developed a multitude of institutions to control and suppress their equally expensive to control emotions of violence somehow are taken for granted. We exert equal control, but we have had 50K years to develop institutional means of directing our aggressiveness and competition to productive ends.
As yet women have not found a way to devote their emotions to constructive ends. Instead, they have – or at least single women have – in large part voted to destroy civilization by the systematic attack on property, family, and marriage that makes the compromise between the gender’s possible despite our differences in reproductive strategy.
Language would help women articulate the cost of their experience and allow the genders to engage in exchanges to assist them, rather than lies and rents in order to justify them.
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-05 20:16:00 UTC