MARX WAS WRONG VIA DISTRACTION
It’s not a class war after all. It’s a genetic war. Better genes against worse genes. The better genes work with smaller better populations, and the worse genes, like all of nature, work with larger, worse populations.
I mean. That’s just how it is. If we ‘reconcile’ it’s genetic suicide.
Violence is the only answer.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-07 05:01:00 UTC
DAMN. THE HBD PEOPLE ARE RIGHT
Liberty is genetic.
Sigh.
Moderate testosterone, low impulsivity, totally outbred, good verbal and spatial skills.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-06 09:19:00 UTC
(16-17, 17-21, 17-18, 18-23, 22-42, 40-44, 24-? )
{16:1,17:3,18:3,19:2,20:2,21:1,22:2,23:2,24:2,25:2,26:1-39:1,40:2,41:2,42:2,43:1,44:1,45:0.}
Hmmm….
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-05 08:24:00 UTC
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/522111/how-to-burst-the-filter-bubble-that-protects-us-from-opposing-views/?utm_campaign=socialsync&utm_medium=social-post&utm_source=facebookI DON”T WANT THE BUBBLE BURST. THAT JUST MEANS MORE INDOCTRINATION.
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-02 04:55:00 UTC
1/5-1/4 OF MEN LEAVE NO DESCENDANTS
“The proportion of men having no children hit a noticeable low during the good times of the post-War boom. Since then, the pattern has returned to something very similar to what it was before the boom; that is, a fifth to a quarter of men leaving no descendants.” – JAYMAN
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-02 00:17:00 UTC
I REDUCE ALL OF THIS “STUFF” TO ECONOMICS, SIGNALING, AND INCENTIVES
1) Genetic adaptation -> more or less impulsively (time preference)(openness to ‘others’)
2) Reproductives strategy -> Moral Bias
3) Structure of Production -> Family Structure
4) Military Structure -> Property Rights initial structure
5) Inheritance Structure -> Property rights Flexibility
6) Property Rights -> Mobility of Labor
7) Family Structure -> Moderates genetic moral bias
8) Inbreeding and outbreeding -> Trust
Freedom (property rights) requires:
1) Militia (self financed weapons, voluntary participation)
2) Individual Property rights (necessitated by militia)
3) Distrust of the concentration of power / Openness
2) Homogeneity of norms.
3) Outbreeding
4) Lower impulsivity
And institutions to persist it.
5) A family (reproductive) structure that compromises between male and female reproductive strategies.
6) Voluntary (arbitrary, preferential) Inheritance
7) Articulated property rights
And side effects
8) Some means of suppressing the reproduction of underclasses (war, pestilence, climate, calories – all of the above)
Source date (UTC): 2013-11-30 06:37:00 UTC
THE COGNITIVE BIASES OF THE EMPIRICAL FIELDS? (question) (see The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations at www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com) What is the difference in the the cognitive biases of the different disciplines? 1) Engineering and engineers 2) Computer science and computer scientists, 3) Economics and economists (statistics) 4) Physics and physicists 5) Mathematics and mathematicians? How would you stack-rank these five by: i) The weight given to understanding of human hubris vs human rationality? ii) The use of obscurant versus operational language iii) The use of platonist versus naturalistic language. iv) The requirement that people adapt to new knowledge, versus adapt technology to suit the needs and wants of people? v) The tendency to favor statist versus libertarian solutions? ON IQ Now, we have to understand some variations in the data. Mostly it’s a hierarchy of IQ. But Economists usually skew lower than the other disciplines because a) they are paid less, and b) the criteria for what is called an economics degree varies a lot. (It is very hard to make less than 100K as a computer scientist. It is very easy to make 150K. And not difficult to make 200K.) Given the damned rigor of the discipline I find this sort of thing interesting. DISCLAIMER I am educated as a fine artist, in Art Theory. (The philosophy of art and art history). Essentially as an art critic. Art just isn’t generally good enough to critique any more. Although the art-craft movement is still creative and beautiful. The movie business is the great sucking sound for artistic talent in America. And art has become a lower middle class occupation with an upper proletarian work force. It is not in the least bit aristocratic.
THE COGNITIVE BIASES OF THE EMPIRICAL FIELDS? (question) (see The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations at www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com) What is the difference in the the cognitive biases of the different disciplines? 1) Engineering and engineers 2) Computer science and computer scientists, 3) Economics and economists (statistics) 4) Physics and physicists 5) Mathematics and mathematicians? How would you stack-rank these five by: i) The weight given to understanding of human hubris vs human rationality? ii) The use of obscurant versus operational language iii) The use of platonist versus naturalistic language. iv) The requirement that people adapt to new knowledge, versus adapt technology to suit the needs and wants of people? v) The tendency to favor statist versus libertarian solutions? ON IQ Now, we have to understand some variations in the data. Mostly it’s a hierarchy of IQ. But Economists usually skew lower than the other disciplines because a) they are paid less, and b) the criteria for what is called an economics degree varies a lot. (It is very hard to make less than 100K as a computer scientist. It is very easy to make 150K. And not difficult to make 200K.) Given the damned rigor of the discipline I find this sort of thing interesting. DISCLAIMER I am educated as a fine artist, in Art Theory. (The philosophy of art and art history). Essentially as an art critic. Art just isn’t generally good enough to critique any more. Although the art-craft movement is still creative and beautiful. The movie business is the great sucking sound for artistic talent in America. And art has become a lower middle class occupation with an upper proletarian work force. It is not in the least bit aristocratic.
Yes, conservatives are INNATELY more critical of free-riders: “North Eurasian and Circumpolar hunter-gatherers (Hutterites and Amish, Puritans) will be more prone to altruistic punishment than those from Middle Old World culture area (Jews, Gypsies, Chinese)” “…. *** Puritan groups seem particularly prone to bouts of moralistic outrage directed at those of their own people seen as free riders and morally blameworthy.***” -Kevin MacDonald AND SO: Whether it is cultural or genetic or both doesn’t matter so much, although I’m in the 60/40 camp in favor of genetic on this topic. And the pareto rule would suggest that as long as you’re in a 90/10 proposition or less, diversity isn’t a problem. But two things are certain: a) people don’t actually assimilate outside of their gene pool, and b) our tribal differences – our tribal DIVERSITY is something very precious for everyone. Probably the ‘cuircumpolar’ in particular. Because that individualism is economically superior to group-ishness.
Yes, conservatives are INNATELY more critical of free-riders: “North Eurasian and Circumpolar hunter-gatherers (Hutterites and Amish, Puritans) will be more prone to altruistic punishment than those from Middle Old World culture area (Jews, Gypsies, Chinese)” “…. *** Puritan groups seem particularly prone to bouts of moralistic outrage directed at those of their own people seen as free riders and morally blameworthy.***” -Kevin MacDonald AND SO: Whether it is cultural or genetic or both doesn’t matter so much, although I’m in the 60/40 camp in favor of genetic on this topic. And the pareto rule would suggest that as long as you’re in a 90/10 proposition or less, diversity isn’t a problem. But two things are certain: a) people don’t actually assimilate outside of their gene pool, and b) our tribal differences – our tribal DIVERSITY is something very precious for everyone. Probably the ‘cuircumpolar’ in particular. Because that individualism is economically superior to group-ishness.