Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • LIMITED NUMBER OF WOMEN CEOS AND BOARD MEMBERS I think we know the answer and ha

    LIMITED NUMBER OF WOMEN CEOS AND BOARD MEMBERS

    I think we know the answer and have known the answer for years:

    1) the distribution of IQ at 130 or higher, which is common threshold in CEO’s and board members, and necessary for marginally competitive advantage means that executive participation by women will max at around 30%. Nature does not produce an equivalent number of marginally different women.

    2) board membership is not fun. It is largely hard work. The material is quantitative. And decisions are legal, funancial, political, factional and risky. Appeals to empathy or sympathy are considered rightly to be attemts at deception. Board members usually have little information and what they do have they must treat skepyically. Consensus can be difficult and intractable.

    3) Women will not as willingly play the cost of maintaining unpleasant, argumentative factional loyalty as often or as well as men, so they are percieved as less trustworthy partners on a team. Those that do are paired with men they agree with. And that combination seems to be powerful.

    4) more men prefer to specialize in abstract rules, and devote their time to one specialization. So more men tend to master what organizations value.

    Free from nevessary domestic toil, women dominate the middle of the economy and men the margins, and assortive mating reinforces that distribution. There is no chance it will change and if it did, those companies operation by existing means would rapidly dominate those with less meritocratic orders.

    We are only equal under the law in the resolution of disputes over property and even then not universally so – as males will attest in family court.

    But we are not equal in ability. Equal in value to others. Equal in status ( mating potential). Nor equal in value to mankind.

    Equality is achieveable in kinship matters, but not commercial relations. And commerce under individualism is not kinship outside of a homogenous city state.

    Just how it is and must be.

    We can bend natures laws but we cannot ignore them.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-17 04:22:00 UTC

  • THE CHOICE OF ALIENATION Alienated: ostracized, outcast, irrelevant, indifferent

    THE CHOICE OF ALIENATION

    Alienated: ostracized, outcast, irrelevant, indifferent, without value to the group, independent, alone.

    Why have we evolved this feeling?

    Because it is an instinctual warning that our status is low. Not only are we not desirable mating material. But we do not provide the other members of the group with value. They see no promise that we will provide value. And we see no promise of providing value. So our wishes can be comfortably discounted in any group decision. We need not consume group effort and resources. And we can be left behind in duress (die or be fired). We evolved that feeling so that we would be desperately incentivized to find a way to provide value. In history it was a death sentence. Today it is a subject of cognitive therapy.

    What causes this feeling in history?

    The organization of humans engaged production has been declining from the tribe (Hunter gatherer), to extended family (agrarian settlement), to nuclear family (prohibition on inbreeding), to the Isolated family(industrialism) to the individual (information age and feminism), as the division of labor and knowledge increases due the increase of people in the work-force.

    We evolved to use visible signals, emotional expressions, and personal knowledge of one another, living in bands and tribes, and we now communicate by pricing signals and a hierarchy of manners, ethics and morals, whose only visible feedback is negative, and our only success metric consumption and survival. We are not administered by the knowledge of others, but by antique religious norms, contemporary-religious norms (Postmodernism), an inconceivable network of laws, and a system of credit information which cares nothing about the vicissitudes of our lives. We live in physically isolated spaces, free from the compromise with others, free to imaging our own status within our family, tribe and nation, as whatever we dream it to be. We choose to live alone. We choose our spatial freedom. We choose our freedom to consume. To spend our efforts on the self, without compromise to the family, extended family, clan, tribe and nation. We choose it on purpose. Willingly. And almost universally, all people, who have the opportunity to choose spatial freedom, person consumption, and freedom from compromise do so whenever possible. We are confronted not with inequality, but with the pervasive evidence that we are all equal in our near-irrelevance to one another outside of the mother-child bond. The further west we move the less tangible is the tradition of kinship, so even genes do not guarantee us membership.

    But given the choice we almost always choose consumption. Because we are too selfish to forgo the opportunity for stimulation, experience, consumption and status to compromise with others and reduce both the opportunity to gain stimulation, as well as the chance that the illusion of our status, be erased by constant interaction with others who would dispel it.

    Alienation is the price we pay for selfishness. And we pay it willingly.

    We complain about the prevalence of a McDonalds hamburger, which has more calories than most people could consume in a week, and more chemicals that they could absorb in a lifetime. We complain about the cost of everything, even though our purchasing power is unrivaled.

    We criticize the cost of living near good schools. We envy those with clothes, goods, cars and homes as conspicuous consumers when the only difference between their goods and ours is the status signal that accompanies it, and the conflict this causes between the illusion of our mating status and our observable reality.

    Status in american life requires little more than a college education, a two income family, that provides someone else what they want, so that we can get what we want. But most other people want something the provision of which is mundane, uninteresting, boring, repetitious – because that is what makes something inexpensive.

    We complain about military spending, while it is paid for almost entirely by exporting debt, so the dollars can be used in the market for petroleum, and then we inflate the debt away, conveniently taxing the developed world for our military, while providing us extraordinary trading rights, and the stabilization of prices of commodities, without which americans would lose between a quarter and a third of their standard of living.

    Will women choose to restore the nuclear family and abandon the workplace? Will people forgo selling their labor at ‘jobs’ and return to direct participation in production and commerce, and the risk that comes with doing so? Will they abandon commerce altogether and resort to sustenance farming? It does not appear so.

    Will the american society become as redistributionist as the smaller nations try to? No. We are no longer kin, or near kin. and People sacrifice only for kin. Kinship can be determined by values and culture alone, not genetic relation. But we are not homogenous enough. WHy? Because human moral codes are determined by family structures, family structures by the allocation of property, and the level of technology involved in production. People will not fund alternative moral codes. Redistribution is for the small and homogenous, where homogenous means homogenous family structure, and homogenous morality, homogenous values, and marginally homogenous kinship. Trust is necessary to avoid the economic friction of corruption and a diversity of manners, ethics, morals, values and family structure leads to a competition for status signals, a competition for power, divisiveness, and a decline in trust necessary for the prevention of corruption and the low friction of trade.

    We still worship Marx’s moral vision, which all of us would embrace if it was possible, even though we know that without prices and incentives to inform us what to do, we would be at the merciless subjection of those who would command us into equality. But where our only possible equality is in poverty.

    Everyone wants the same thing: the illusion that is Denmark. The problem is, all the adults can’t figure out any other way to get there. The only way we know of is ‘small’.

    Equality of care for one another amidst the inequality of value to one another is only achievable with kin.

    And that’s where we got the feeling from.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-16 09:43:00 UTC

  • FERTILITY RATE DIFFERENCES. “…fertility is dysgenic for women and roughly neut

    FERTILITY RATE DIFFERENCES.

    “…fertility is dysgenic for women and roughly neutral for men by IQ. However, here we see that there is finer pattern behind this when you break it down. What is actually happening is that fertility is highly dysgenic by IQ for liberal men (for whom indeed, the smartest category of such men here – roughly IQ 115+ – about 50% leave no descendants); is slightly dysgenic for moderate men; and is slightly eugenic for conservative men.”

    TRANSLATION

    “fertility is dysgenic for women” : women produce increasingly less intelligent offspring.”

    “Highly dysgenic for liberal men” : Liberal men do not reproduce anywhere near replacement rates.

    “Slightly eugenic for conservative men” : conservative males produce more offspring of increasing intelligence.

    WHY DOES THIS MATTER

    It matters because we live in a democracy. Women vote to increase their reproduction by consequence, to decrease aggregate intelligence. This is not true if we have stable nuclear families that must be self supporting before it’s possible to bear children.

    So, the family model is not neutral.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-14 09:23:00 UTC

  • PREFERENCES AND BEAUTY

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0068395MATING PREFERENCES AND BEAUTY


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-13 03:55:00 UTC

  • IS A GUY THING. JUST IS. AT LEAST ONE GOOD THING LEFT ABOUT BEING MALE. 🙂

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-07/afps-esr071213.phpCREATIVITY IS A GUY THING. JUST IS. AT LEAST ONE GOOD THING LEFT ABOUT BEING MALE. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-12 09:12:00 UTC

  • LANGUAGE CHANGES TO REFLECT OUR CHOICE OF SPATIAL FREEDOM : BY OURSELVES AND UNH

    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/changes-in-language-reflect-our-247626.aspxOUR LANGUAGE CHANGES TO REFLECT OUR CHOICE OF SPATIAL FREEDOM : BY OURSELVES AND UNHAPPY ABOUT IT.

    “a gradual rise in the use of “feel” and a decline in the use of “act,” suggesting a turn toward inner mental life and away from outward behavior. She found a growing focus on the self, with the use of “child,” “unique,” “individual” and “self” all increasing from 1800 to 2000.”


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-09 10:51:00 UTC

  • DOES AN ATTRACTIVE WOMAN DO TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND REMAIN FEMININE (IN ANY OC

    http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2013/07/on-being-an-attractive-woman-and-being-taken-seriously-in-philosophy.htmlWHAT DOES AN ATTRACTIVE WOMAN DO TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND REMAIN FEMININE (IN ANY OCCUPATION) WITHOUT DRESSING ‘DOWN’ or DOWDY?

    Other commenters left very strange advice, to what common people on the street would consider a very strange question. 🙂

    Confusing separate issues:

    1) The rather strange idea that you’re different from any other woman. The fact is, you’re MORE DESIRABLE so you’re going to attract more attention, and more ENTHUSIASTIC attention.

    2) Femininity is attractive to males and that won’t stop – if it does, extinction is a possible consequence. 🙂

    3) The rather strange idea that you want to SIGNAL femininity to yourself, or to others, but not produce an equivalent RESPONSE.

    4) The rather strange idea that the problem is something in society rather than in your understanding and behavior – a strangeness that is pretty common in the feminist movement.

    5) What do you SIGNAL to males, in ADDITION to your physical attraction, femininity, and intelligence? Does that include ACCESSIBILITY? AVAILABILITY?

    6) How do all the other capable and beautiful and feminine women in the world handle this issue? Do they complain about the fact that if they SIGNAL desirability that they produce the appropriate ACTION in the population?

    As an practitioner of economic philosophy, incentives are what we deal with (in addition to prices.) And any micro-economist or behavioral economist would say this: you want X,Y,and Z benefits without paying A,B,and C, costs. In your case, it’s likely that you want to attract attention, including the heightened self image that comes from attracting attention, but you don’t want to pay the cost of rejecting the unwanted attention. (In the extreme interpretation, ethically, this means that you’re a thief, or fraud, so to speak. 🙂

    And it isn’t necessary (and it’s probably counter-productive) to ask this question of successful women in business (there are plenty). Or politics (the entertainment industry for unattractive people.) Instead, there are ready research subjects everywhere. If you were to go to high end restaurants and clubs in any major city, on the west coast, but more so in Europe, and certainly in eastern Europe, and ask the attractive female waitresses and bartenders how they deal with SIGNALING femininity, desirability, without signaling accessibility or availability, they’ll tell you – the same craft that women have used since the dawn of time. It’s how you interact with others. You do not need to dress dowdy. You might consider wearing a rock of an engagement ring – fake stone included. You do have to learn how to live as a human being in a world that is unfortunately peopled by human beings. And the honest thing to do in any social circumstance is not to advertise something then say it’s not for sale – so to speak. Or to wish that the world was not peopled by a pair of genders that have competing reproductive strategies because of asymmetry of costs and desires.

    But then, trying to commit micro thefts – get discounts as we call it in economics – is as natural a human behavior as being attracted to more fit genes. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-04 04:48:00 UTC

  • THE SPECTRA OF MORAL PERSUASIONS: OBSERVATIONAL vs EXPERIENTIAL (sketch) Compare

    THE SPECTRA OF MORAL PERSUASIONS: OBSERVATIONAL vs EXPERIENTIAL

    (sketch)

    Compare the rational (observational) deception spectrum:

    :>IGNORANCE->AWARENESS->FACTS->SYMPATHY(observational)->CONSEQUENTIALIST CALCULATION(outcomes)->FRAUD{…}->PROPAGANDA->DOCTRINE->(VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION[incentive for inclusion in opportunity)->(INVOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION[incentive against exclusion from opportunity])->(ORGANIZATIONAL CONQUEST)>|:

    with the emotional (experiential) deception spectrum:

    :|>IGNORANCE->AWARENESS->NARRATIVE->SYMPATHY(experiential)->EMPATHY->LOADING->FRAMING->PROPAGANDA->DOCTRINE->(VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION[incentive for inclusion in opportunity)->(INVOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION[incentive against exclusion from opportunity])->(ORGANIZATIONAL CONQUEST)>|:

    And we get:

    >IGNORANCE->AWARENESS->…

    followed by the choice between:

    Rational Deception: …FACTS->SYMPATHY(observational)->CONSEQUENTIALIST CALCULATION(outcomes)->FRAUD{…}->…

    and/or:

    Emotional Deception: …NARRATIVE->SYMPATHY(experiential)->EMPATHY->LOADING->FRAMING->…

    Culminating in:

    ….PROPAGANDA->DOCTRINE->(VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION[incentive for inclusion in opportunity)->(INVOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION[incentive against exclusion from opportunity])->(ORGANIZATIONAL CONQUEST)>|:

    THOUGHTS

    It’s no wonder we resort to everything other than voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange to obtain what we want, whenever possible. There are simply so many options available for us to use to obtain what we want by deception. 🙂

    While it’s possible to persuade (coerce) people using the three means of coercion: argument, violence, and exchange; It’s not really possible to demonstrate that the use of violence is a deceptive means of coercion. Its immoral, certainly, in the sense that it’s involuntary. But it’s not a form of deception.

    Violence is the most honest human expression possible. There is no lack of clarity about it. No room for misinterpretation. No attempt at cost-savings or cooperation. Violence is as honest as you can get. But honesty isn’t in itself a good. It’s only a good in the context of cooperation. Using violence isn’t cooperation. It’s the opposite. It’s abandoning effort at cooperation.

    Propertarianism: Morality reconstructed.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-02 13:40:00 UTC

  • ARE DEMANDS FOR EMPATHY ATTEMPTED THEFT? If one must empathize with something in

    ARE DEMANDS FOR EMPATHY ATTEMPTED THEFT?

    If one must empathize with something in order to be coerced into action, isn’t that just theft?

    I have been struggling with this idea on and off for years. But I can’t find anything that anyone else has written about it.

    However, from Freud onward, it’s pervasive.

    Trying to read a book by Woolfe. And it’s like Heidegger: bait you into an empathic reaction so that you can be deceived into involunary consent.

    What’s the difference between giving you a drug that increases your agreeablness (oxytocin), telling a story as an empathic and persuasive narrative, and making an argument about producing one outcome or another?

    Isn’t the only honest and transparent and voluntary choice, the latter?


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-29 09:04:00 UTC

  • WHITS SINGLE MOTHER POVERTY STATS “For the first time since 1975, the number of

    WHITS SINGLE MOTHER POVERTY STATS

    “For the first time since 1975, the number of white single-mother households who were living in poverty with children, surpassed or equaled black ones in the past decade, spurred by job losses and faster rates of out-of-wedlock births among whites. White single-mother families in poverty stood at nearly 1.5 million in 2011, comparable to the number for blacks. Hispanic single-mother families in poverty trailed at 1.2 million.”

    White crime rates are increasing at about the same rate hispanic crime is decreasing.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-28 12:30:00 UTC