it”s completely unfair. Russians and Ukrainians have this endless supply of beautiful women to use in every possible means of promotion. We’re surrounded and marketed to by feminine beauty. They don’t even have to be creative. They just put beautiful women next to some product or other, and you’re riveted. It’s just wrong. We’re reduced to mere brain stems. lol (There’s no better way to die.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-15 13:48:00 UTC
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF ARISTOCRACY
Aristocracy loves tests.
Test of culture
Test of intelligence
Test of fitness
Test of combat
Test of commerce
Aristocracy seeks to test itself.
Each experiment is a test of one’s excellences.
And only through constant testing do we improve.
An only through constant testing do we know anything about the world.
The more tests one survives, the more honor he collects.
Aristocracy is a scientific political system.
Why do you think aristocrats invented science?
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-14 06:55:00 UTC
http://thebea.st/1j9f2zkCREATIVITY: FEED THE MACHINE / RIDE THE ELEPHANT
lol. Yeah. I just feed the machine. If I don’t, it makes my life hell. Sort of like Vaal in that Star Trek episode The Apple.
That ‘creative bit’ the article refers to, which I tend to think operates more like lucid dreaming, just doesn’t shut off unless I’m in social situations that are interesting. Or when, I try, very, very, very hard to step back and think purely objectively. And I can’t really sustain that level of effort very long.
The trick I found, was to make sure that obsessive creative impulse has a problem to lucid dream about. Otherwise the constant noise will drive you into exhaustion trying to fight it. Usually I sort of identify a problem and then some X hours, days or even months later I know the answer when it just pops into my head, and then have to go figure out WHY I know it.
I am very conscious of “Riding the Elephant”. What I think of as “me” is the rider. That machine is the elephant. I can beat it with a stick to steer it, but you know, it’s an elephant. It can do what it wants.
You can train people to think creatively. We’ve known how to do it for over a century now. But you can’t train people to be uncontrollably obsessively creative. And I think a lot of us might actually prefer to be normal instead. ‘Cause a lot of the time it sucks.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-13 04:17:00 UTC
EUGENIC REPRODUCTION WAS A CONSEQUENCE NOT A PURPOSE
(smart questions from Todd Myers)
TODD:
—“Presumably if you are working on an evolutionary model, morality would be evaluated on its ability to facilitate or hinder the likelihood that genes of those practicing it are passed on. “—
CURT:
I think that if universal moral rules necessary for cooperation are followed the result is eugenic. I think that eugenic reproduction (getting the best to reproduce more) is a necessary and higher good than dysgenic reproduction (what we are doing now). (Why do we pay less competent people to have more children instead of paying more competent people to have more children? In a world where children are not only unnecessary but undesirable, because of our success and promoting dysgenic reproduction.)
TODD:
—“Am I mistaken about the purpose of your project and its relation to sociobiological foundations?”—
CURT
Well, no, It’s not a purpose. I didn’t start out that way at all. It’s an interesting *consequence*. My purpose was to finish the classical liberal and anarchic program by creating a universal language of morality (ethical realism), the rules for constructing political systems (propertarianism), and to recommend ONE political system to perpetuate the historical uniqueness of western civilization as the world’s most innovative and adaptive peoples (aristocratic egalitarianism). So I just wanted to convert the european tradition into rational (and scientific) language. It wasn’t until very late that I understood that the northern european (aristocratic manorial) model was eugenic. But once I did understand, it became somewhat obvious why europe excelled for its reasons (facilitating reproduction of the best, while suppressing and underfeeding the rest) and asia for different reasons (killing a lot of trouble makers as often as possible,keeping the poor in slave conditions on the edge of starvation, and using wealth to feed the noble families who would work to study.) And conversely, why every other civilization did not.
So, the ultimate moral question though as to whether something is good or not, must in the end return to ‘is it good for man?’ Eugenic reproduction, economic productivity without population growth, continuous increases in consumption (of energy) without population growth, continuous technological innovation without population growth, and our eventual loss of dependence upon the planet for our existence, are probably all ‘goods’, and everything else is cooperating on those tests there while not doing harm to one another.
We have too much data now about the reproductive results and costs of ‘bad people’. It’s terrifying really. Then we have the problem of people who aren’t bad but are of so little use to others that they cannot find labor. It is these people who produce the most children. And that cannot remain in place for long.
I hope this answered your question. It was a very smart one.
Curt.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-11 04:03:00 UTC
—“You think IQ research is dangerous to the status quo? Wait until researchers begin uncovering population group differences in the moral senses.”—
Yeah. Um. That will be awkward.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-10 00:42:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/What-do-American-girls-think-about-Chinese-guys
https://www.quora.com/What-do-American-girls-think-about-Chinese-guys
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/05/07/seen-at-11-positive-pregnancy-tests-up-for-sale-online/”95% OF THE WOMEN ARE TRYING TO ENTRAP MEN”
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-08 02:08:00 UTC
WHAT’S A SCHELLING POINT?
–“a solution that people will tend to use in the absence of communication, because it seems natural, special, or relevant to them. The concept was introduced by the Nobel Memorial Prize-winning American economist Thomas Schelling in his book The Strategy of Conflict (1960).[1] In this book (at p. 57), Schelling describes “focal point[s] for each person’s expectation of what the other expects him to expect to be expected to do.” This type of focal point later was named after Schelling. He further explains that such points are highly useful in negotiations, because we cannot completely trust our negotiating partners’ words.”–
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-07 14:17:00 UTC
MORAL BLINDNESS AND DEMONSTRATED SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE
(interesting post)(reposted from comment)
What I didn’t understand was that the left’s solipsism is non-cognitive, morally blind, inalterable, and very powerful. From the data conservatives understand the world most accurately. followed by moderate democrats who are just practical. libertarians understand the world less, but they use economics as a proxy for understanding which is kind of fascinating really now that I understand it. Progressives have very little grasp of the world, and very little of morality, but do not use economics as a proxy for understanding because they’re confident.
The left is a genetic expression of the female need to care for a child and advocate for the child in the context of the tribe regardless of the rationality of doing so for the tribe, and regardless of the child’s merits. It’s why mothers of serial killers don’t believe their son’s are guilty, and progressives think that children are the product of the environment not their genes. A mother’s love at the political level. It is understandable in this context, but not rational or beneficial in this context.
I don’t know the degree to which the ‘cathedral’ influences morality, but using postmodern language has certainly helped them with the educated classes who are LESS dependent on morality. So, in the educated classes, both of which are less moral than the less educated classes, of the two of them, only one (libertarians) uses a proxy for morality, and the other (progressives) have no proxy – no means of sensing objective morality, and no desire for one. Libertarians are outnumbered by progressives more than two to one.
Libertarians have been distracted by ‘immoral libertarianism’ for thirty years. And unable to fulfill their role as the intellectual leadership of conservatives. So I’m illustrating the errors of immoral libertarianism, and libertarian moral blindness, so that liberty seekers can once again form the intellectual leadership of the much more numerous conservatives.
Source date (UTC): 2014-05-07 00:04:00 UTC