(It’s really obvious living over here that americans spend too much time alone. no wonder 40% of women are on anti-depressants and our older men are committing suicide in record numbers.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-21 11:05:00 UTC
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
SHADES OF BLADE RUNNER Is it just me? Or do Jonathan Haidt’s morality questions
SHADES OF BLADE RUNNER
Is it just me? Or do Jonathan Haidt’s morality questions seem to be evolving into a Voight Kampf test?
🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-19 03:55:00 UTC
-
HUMANS ARE THE MOST UNEQUAL CREATURES ON EARTH (interesting) HUMANS divide (a)Pe
HUMANS ARE THE MOST UNEQUAL CREATURES ON EARTH
(interesting)
HUMANS divide (a)Perception, (b)Consideration, (c)Knowledge, (d)Labor, and (e) reproduction – and we negotiate through words and provide ‘facts’ or ‘data’ through acts of voluntary exchange.
We operate as a fascinating computational system. Just as a transistor flips to make a connection that was not previously available, and signals downstream its change in state, we signal through voluntary exchange our change in state, and in doing so we capture and distribute information about our perceptions.
We were cognizant of the division of reproductive labor, overly obsessed with the division of labor once we discovered it, and only in the past few generations have come to understand the importance of the division of knowledge determined by intellectual ability, and now we have begun to understand the division of perception and consideration is also genetically determined.
We got stock in the error of equality. Yet, we are perhaps one of the most unequal, if not THE MOST UNEQUAL creatures in existence – because we have greater capacity for inequality.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev,
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-18 03:14:00 UTC
-
An Alternative Biological Theory, to Sowell’s of The Vision of The Anointed
[T]he progressive pre-cognitive need for false consensus bias confuses them into thinking that everyone else is likewise as susceptible to false consensus bias. But that is a female genetic ‘defect’ – an adaptation necessary for primitive survival, and one that evolved in concert with ‘gossip’, which is meant to appeal to (take advantage of) false consensus bias. Secondly, need for consensus (feeling part) that drives false consensus bias, and the impulse to use gossip as an exertion of power, are amplified by the status signaling that we obtain from achievement of that power (and negative that we get from seeing our efforts frustrated).
I think this is a superior, simpler theory of causation over Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed. It is one thing (and he is right) to describe their point of view. But it is another to describe why they should be so constantly drawn that point of view.
In case my meaning is not clear: I am on message. We humans can make use of voluntary exchange as our information system, and we cannot aggregate our preferences by any other means that corresponds to material reality – in particular we cannot claim rational political or moral opinion except as demonstrations of our individual genetic biases.
We are far less rational than we think. Democracy cannot work as other than despotism of the underclasses leading to tyranny of an elite. The only possible moral government is one that is analogous to the market, in which both collect information and conduct exchanges. And the groups that must conduct those exchanges are those who have common interests in the production of commons: genders, classes and tribes.
We were mistaken. We confused the fact that while laws must be made for the individual actor, but commons must be made for the family regardless of class. But when the family is the minority, and individuals express genetic interests not inside the family, but by voting, we ended the ability of the democratic government to conduct exchanges between families of different wealth (class), and set loose our genetic interests in a ‘brawl’ that is played out in words, over very long periods. But it is nothing but a genetic brawl. It is a slow cascade of violence not cooperative exchange.Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine -
An Alternative Biological Theory, to Sowell’s of The Vision of The Anointed
[T]he progressive pre-cognitive need for false consensus bias confuses them into thinking that everyone else is likewise as susceptible to false consensus bias. But that is a female genetic ‘defect’ – an adaptation necessary for primitive survival, and one that evolved in concert with ‘gossip’, which is meant to appeal to (take advantage of) false consensus bias. Secondly, need for consensus (feeling part) that drives false consensus bias, and the impulse to use gossip as an exertion of power, are amplified by the status signaling that we obtain from achievement of that power (and negative that we get from seeing our efforts frustrated).
I think this is a superior, simpler theory of causation over Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed. It is one thing (and he is right) to describe their point of view. But it is another to describe why they should be so constantly drawn that point of view.
In case my meaning is not clear: I am on message. We humans can make use of voluntary exchange as our information system, and we cannot aggregate our preferences by any other means that corresponds to material reality – in particular we cannot claim rational political or moral opinion except as demonstrations of our individual genetic biases.
We are far less rational than we think. Democracy cannot work as other than despotism of the underclasses leading to tyranny of an elite. The only possible moral government is one that is analogous to the market, in which both collect information and conduct exchanges. And the groups that must conduct those exchanges are those who have common interests in the production of commons: genders, classes and tribes.
We were mistaken. We confused the fact that while laws must be made for the individual actor, but commons must be made for the family regardless of class. But when the family is the minority, and individuals express genetic interests not inside the family, but by voting, we ended the ability of the democratic government to conduct exchanges between families of different wealth (class), and set loose our genetic interests in a ‘brawl’ that is played out in words, over very long periods. But it is nothing but a genetic brawl. It is a slow cascade of violence not cooperative exchange.Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine -
AN ALTERNATIVE TO SOWELL’S THEORY OF THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED The progressive
AN ALTERNATIVE TO SOWELL’S THEORY OF THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED
The progressive pre-cognitive need for false consensus bias confuses them into thinking that everyone else is likewise as susceptible to false consensus bias. But that is a female genetic ‘defect’ – an adaptation necessary for primitive survival, and one that evolved in concert with ‘gossip’, which is meant to appeal to (take advantage of) false consensus bias. Secondly, need for consensus (feeling part) that drives false consensus bias, and the impulse to use gossip as an exertion of power, are amplified by the status signaling that we obtain from achievement of that power (and negative that we get from seeing our efforts frustrated).
I think this is a superior, simpler theory of causation over Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed. It is one thing (and he is right) to describe their point of view. But it is another to describe why they should be so constantly drawn that point of view.
In case my meaning is not clear: I am on message. We humans can make use of voluntary exchange as our information system, and we cannot aggregate our preferences by any other means that corresponds to material reality – in particular we cannot claim rational political or moral opinion except as demonstrations of our individual genetic biases.
We are far less rational than we think. Democracy cannot work as other than despotism of the underclasses leading to tyranny of an elite. The only possible moral government is one that is analogous to the market, in which both collect information and conduct exchanges. And the groups that must conduct those exchanges are those who have common interests in the production of commons: genders, classes and tribes.
We were mistaken. We confused the fact that while laws must be made for the individual actor, but commons must be made for the family regardless of class. But when the family is the minority, and individuals express genetic interests not inside the family, but by voting, we ended the ability of the democratic government to conduct exchanges between families of different wealth (class), and set loose our genetic interests in a ‘brawl’ that is played out in words, over very long periods. But it is nothing but a genetic brawl. It is a slow cascade of violence not cooperative exchange.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 04:46:00 UTC
-
END OF THE PROGRESSIVE ERA – BECAUSE OF SCIENCE AND EVIDENCE The Progressive fan
END OF THE PROGRESSIVE ERA – BECAUSE OF SCIENCE AND EVIDENCE
The Progressive fantasy was that reason and speech could overwhelm our and defeat our genes. But all they did was to give license to them – degeneracy.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 02:51:00 UTC
-
TOLERANCE FOR FEMININE NEED FOR MAGIC Is the female need to believe in various k
TOLERANCE FOR FEMININE NEED FOR MAGIC
Is the female need to believe in various kinds of magic, superstition, new-age pseudoscience, and religion the men’s equivalent of need for hunting, sports and action movies? That it’s a necessary vent for the uncontrollable and irrational impulses that they cannot separate into ?
I have enough problems with the SINGULARITY of my mind – it could literally kill me if I didn’t constantly work to control it – and nearly has. We call this category of thinking a ‘horizontal’ problem. But a woman has a similar problem in that they have an equally vertical problem: a zillion ‘windows popping up’ that they simply cannot stop, and giving them an order relieves them of the work of categorizing them rationally.
I am terribly sympathetic actually. Most men have very ‘quiet’ minds compared to women. Something which many women cannot seem to imagine – how ‘quiet’ our minds are by comparison. They ask “What are you thinking?” and we respond “Nothing”, because in fact, we are thinking of nothing. We evolved to watch the horizon for prey – quietly. Patiently. That is very different from wondering about what children are doing – constantly.
So I’ve become tolerant of silly chick talk. That they cannot tell that they are aware of breathing patterns in the bus, or patterns of gestures, changes in air pressure, and that they perceive this as magic – to them it is.
We have similar mental blindness. I always am amazed how ‘dumb’ women are about politics until I remind myself that me and my fellow brothers evolved to keep other males away, to kill other males, and to take their women – and that women by contrast have a slave mind: they will acclimate to whoever is in control since their genes can continue regardless of which males are in charge.
The left suppressed Darwin more than the right. For good reason. Leftists are weaker and less attractive – less desirable. But they have numbers. Otherwise ‘desirable’ would have no meaning.
So I have become (recently) much more ‘accepting’ of silly chick talk as nothing more than the equivalent of men talking about sports or politics – it’s a vent.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 02:45:00 UTC
-
SPECIALIZATION AND THE REPRODUCTIVE DIVISION OF LABOR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNg4NpDTxMMORAL SPECIALIZATION AND THE REPRODUCTIVE DIVISION OF LABOR
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 02:55:00 UTC
-
ARE MANKIND’S WARRIOR ANTS “We applied a machinelearning method to fMRI data to
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(14)01213-5CONSERVATIVES ARE MANKIND’S WARRIOR ANTS
“We applied a machinelearning method to fMRI data to test the hypotheses that brain responses to emotionally evocative images predict individual scores on a standard political ideology assay. Disgusting images, especially those related to animal reminder
disgust (e.g., mutilated body), generate neural responses that are highly predictive of political orientation even though these neural predictors do not agree with participants’ conscious rating of the stimuli. Images from other affective categories do not support such predictions. Remarkably, brain responses to a single disgusting stimulus were sufficient to make accurate predictions about an individual subject’s political ideology.”
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-14 06:18:00 UTC