If you knew the material you woudn’t object. You don’t. But google scholar, Arxiv, and SSRN are your friends. Research sex differences in anti-social behavior, vocabulary, cognition, and especially mathmatics. Also, though you probably arent capable of it, learn a little bit…
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-17 21:09:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648071207189708800
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648069751770435585
This concept is one of my favorite principles you teach. Because it’s true. For men, most of what you want an external consequence of what you compete for. If you are better competitor, you will be a better person – or you will not compete successfully.
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-17 20:56:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648067898219307008
Reply addressees: @Psyche_OS
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647737585400446976
Not sure the earliest but while it was common sense throughout history given the domestication of animals, and common sense in science from about 1905, and presumed science by the majority prior to the second world war. It was only the revolt against the Nazi use of American Eugenic Research in the thirties that produced the vast wealth of postwar pseudoscience, and the switch from (anglo) Darwin and Spencer as the foundation of social science to the pseudoscientists we know and popularize as (jewish) Boaz, Freud, Marx et al – each of whom is little more than a revolt against darwin, spencer and nietzche (who were correct of course).
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-17 20:17:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648058162233200659
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648053281975947286
Not sure the earliest but while it was common sense throughout history given the domestication of animals, and common sense in science from about 1905, and presumed science by the majority prior to the second world war. It was only the revolt against the Nazi use of American Eugenic Research in the thirties that produced the vast wealth of postwar pseudoscience, and the switch from (anglo) Darwin and Spencer as the foundation of social science to the pseudoscientists we know and popularize as (jewish) Boaz, Freud, Marx et al – each of whom is little more than a revolt against darwin, spencer and nietzche (who were correct of course).
Reply addressees: @Airmanareiks @BronskiJoseph @UBERSOY1 @thealthype
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-17 20:17:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648058162149314570
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648053281975947286
Quite the opposite.
SHORT LIST OF FEMALE MEANS OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR, EVADING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMMONS WHILE HIDING BEHIND MORAL PRETENSE
CAUSE: Evasion of responsibility for the common but demand for control of the commons, externalizing consequential responsibility to males.
Industrialize the sale and distribution of false promises by the tactics of by means of:
Denial
1. Dismissal of the Evidence, History, Argument, Incentives, Norm, or Tradition
2. Evading providing a competitive, equally criticizable and testable alternative.
3. Equating Desirability-Undesirability and Approval-Disapproval or Denial with Truth and Falsehood
4. Face-Before-Truth rather than European truth-before-face, or threat to the dominance or competence hierarchy.
4. NAXALT – “Not All X Are Like That” – Denying a general rule describing a distribution is false because there are some cases at the tails.
Undermining by Ad Hominem (GSRRM)
Consisting of:
1. Poisoning the Well (Polluting the Informational Commons)
2. GSRRM:
… denial
… disapproval,
… outraging
… ridicule,
… shaming,
… moralizing,
… psychologizing,
… rallying,
… gossiping,
… reputation destruction
… and Social Construction
Creating Plausible Deniability
1. Hiding Behind Moral Pretense
2. Hiding behind Voluntary Choice
3. Hiding behind Sympathy for Hyper consumption (experiences)
4. Hiding Behind (Selective) Evasion of Responsibility
5. Heaping Undue Criticism (Persecution) and Undue Praise (personalizing)
Fraud by: Claiming Oppression by individuals as a proxy for laws of nature, or conversely claiming false promise of possibility of evading the laws of nature:
1. False Promise of Freedom from Formal Laws (logic, truth) by the use of social construction of repetitive feedback of information counter to formal, physical, natural, and evolutionary laws.
2. False Promise of Freedom from Physical Laws (scarcity, false promise of endless growth). by the false promise of endless growth, an end to scarcity, and an end to human competition by demonstrated acquisition.
3. False Promise of Freedom Natural Laws (of self-interest, rational choice, amorality, reciprocity, competitive organization), by the false promise of an end to kin selection, koinophillia, ethnocentrism, sex, class, subrace, and racial differences, and the sexual, social, economic, and political value of organization by ethnocentrism given the class, subrace, and subrace differences in sexual, social, economic, and political value to one another, given the substantial evolutionary difference between the races and subraces.
4. False Promise of Freedom from Evolutionary Laws ( ending natural, and market selection, accumulating mutation and regulation, the impossibility of isolation, inescapable regression, accumulated genetic load, dysgenia, and the red queen of resources, competitors, biological, climatological, geological, solar, and galactic risks. ).
Using “Storytelling” by:
1. Faith Healing, delaying into hazard. Faith Healing consists of providing temporary psychological relief while allowing the cause to persist, grow, and evolve.
2. False Story Telling, baiting you into empathy, loading, framing, obscurantism, suggestion, suspension of disbelief and overloading.
3. False Promise, baiting into hazard. Baiting into hazard consists of making false promises of freedom from the laws of the universe. arguing them with sophistry to idealism, magic to pseudoscience, or occult to theology.
4. False Criticism, undermining into hazard.
5. Duplicitous, Double Standard, Irreciprocal, and Poly Logical Ethics, like their polylogical unequal laws,
Escalating from the least burdensome to the most burdensome tactic:
1. Faith healing at every opportunity (lie and deny)
2. Selling false promise if they can (fraud)
3. Evading or silencing at every necessity (shaming, moralizing, psychologizing)
4. Undermining if they have opportunity to (sedition)
5. Attack if they can get away with it (de-platforming, conspiracy)
6. Hiding behind plausible deniability of freedom of choice (non-coercion)
he opposite.
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-17 20:13:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648057143784886280
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648045661147877415
Quite the opposite.
SHORT LIST OF FEMALE MEANS OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR, EVADING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMMONS WHILE HIDING BEHIND MORAL PRETENSE
CAUSE: Evasion of responsibility for the common but demand for control of the commons, externalizing consequential responsibility to males.
Industrialize the sale and distribution of false promises by the tactics of by means of:
Denial
1. Dismissal of the Evidence, History, Argument, Incentives, Norm, or Tradition
2. Evading providing a competitive, equally criticizable and testable alternative.
3. Equating Desirability-Undesirability and Approval-Disapproval or Denial with Truth and Falsehood
4. Face-Before-Truth rather than European truth-before-face, or threat to the dominance or competence hierarchy.
4. NAXALT – “Not All X Are Like That” – Denying a general rule describing a distribution is false because there are some cases at the tails.
Undermining by Ad Hominem (GSRRM)
Consisting of:
1. Poisoning the Well (Polluting the Informational Commons)
2. GSRRM:
… denial
… disapproval,
… outraging
… ridicule,
… shaming,
… moralizing,
… psychologizing,
… rallying,
… gossiping,
… reputation destruction
… and Social Construction
Creating Plausible Deniability
1. Hiding Behind Moral Pretense
2. Hiding behind Voluntary Choice
3. Hiding behind Sympathy for Hyper consumption (experiences)
4. Hiding Behind (Selective) Evasion of Responsibility
5. Heaping Undue Criticism (Persecution) and Undue Praise (personalizing)
Fraud by: Claiming Oppression by individuals as a proxy for laws of nature, or conversely claiming false promise of possibility of evading the laws of nature:
1. False Promise of Freedom from Formal Laws (logic, truth) by the use of social construction of repetitive feedback of information counter to formal, physical, natural, and evolutionary laws.
2. False Promise of Freedom from Physical Laws (scarcity, false promise of endless growth). by the false promise of endless growth, an end to scarcity, and an end to human competition by demonstrated acquisition.
3. False Promise of Freedom Natural Laws (of self-interest, rational choice, amorality, reciprocity, competitive organization), by the false promise of an end to kin selection, koinophillia, ethnocentrism, sex, class, subrace, and racial differences, and the sexual, social, economic, and political value of organization by ethnocentrism given the class, subrace, and subrace differences in sexual, social, economic, and political value to one another, given the substantial evolutionary difference between the races and subraces.
4. False Promise of Freedom from Evolutionary Laws ( ending natural, and market selection, accumulating mutation and regulation, the impossibility of isolation, inescapable regression, accumulated genetic load, dysgenia, and the red queen of resources, competitors, biological, climatological, geological, solar, and galactic risks. ).
Using “Storytelling” by:
1. Faith Healing, delaying into hazard. Faith Healing consists of providing temporary psychological relief while allowing the cause to persist, grow, and evolve.
2. False Story Telling, baiting you into empathy, loading, framing, obscurantism, suggestion, suspension of disbelief and overloading.
3. False Promise, baiting into hazard. Baiting into hazard consists of making false promises of freedom from the laws of the universe. arguing them with sophistry to idealism, magic to pseudoscience, or occult to theology.
4. False Criticism, undermining into hazard.
5. Duplicitous, Double Standard, Irreciprocal, and Poly Logical Ethics, like their polylogical unequal laws,
Escalating from the least burdensome to the most burdensome tactic:
1. Faith healing at every opportunity (lie and deny)
2. Selling false promise if they can (fraud)
3. Evading or silencing at every necessity (shaming, moralizing, psychologizing)
4. Undermining if they have opportunity to (sedition)
5. Attack if they can get away with it (de-platforming, conspiracy)
6. Hiding behind plausible deniability of freedom of choice (non-coercion)
he opposite.
Reply addressees: @WomanPissedoff
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-17 20:13:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648057143289958421
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648045661147877415
There is no data that disputes my data. 😉
Because one of the things I specialize in is pseudoscience in the behavioral sciences. Which as you may or man not know, is almost entirely devoid of replication and junk scientific processes. (where ‘junk’ is the word we use in the…
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-17 19:56:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648052804106309632
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648045984453214211
For example do you know why there are so few if any significant female mathematicians (or any scientist for that matter)? Because we even know the sex differences in mathematical cognition. Pictures and words and memory don’t scale. Systems and models scale.
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-17 18:29:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648030985949179913
Reply addressees: @DiceCookPlate @RobOU812Rob @terrilbruce @GregAbbott_TX
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648029486070235137
Why do you think I don’t know the data on this. 😉
We have so much data on sex differences in cognition it’s ridiculous. Most of my work has been in sex differences in anti-social behavior and especially lying. The only oddity is why men tolerate female antisociality and lying,…
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-17 18:28:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648030602476548119
Reply addressees: @DiceCookPlate @RobOU812Rob @terrilbruce @GregAbbott_TX
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648029486070235137
Demonstrated feminine relativism.
Responsibility evasion for truth that might cause self-regulation of instinct by reason – women avoid self regulation at all times because emotion MUST drive their behavior because evolution discovered rationality is incompatible with the raising of high-cost offspring for long periods. Therefor female emotionality temporality and irresponsibility for the commons regardless of the truth or falsehood is endemic. 🙁
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-17 18:23:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648029544320778240
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1648028518889009153