(Confirming the obvious)
Hypothesis is Tibetan Steppe vs Mongolia vs Siberia. However the basic argument is the same: neotenic evolution from cold weather proximity living.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-02 22:27:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2007217273774522627
I am getting exhausted by these papers missing the point. This is like criticizing the human language faculty when disconnected from the prefrontal cortex. It’s silly. As a language faculty it’s fantastic. It’s an hypothesis generator. Just like our brain is. It works so similarly to our language faculty it’s amazing.
My organizations work in creating that ‘prefrontal cortex’ . We treat the LLMs as hypothesis generators, but then we constraint and govern their thinking like our ‘reasoning conscious minds’ regulate our speech as we go along. It’s not like humans pre-calculate what we’re going to say. We sense a ‘direction’ so to speak and then figure out how to describe it as we go along.
The difference is we don’t interrupt the LLMs and interpret them until they’re finished – we don’t continuously recursively disambiguate their use of language as a path through their ‘latent space’ (world model).
That’s not a bug. It’s simply a fact that the LLM foundation model producers, and frankly the entire academic side of the industry is simply working with their one-trick-pony of ‘attention is all you need’ to produce transformers without auditors (frontal cortex).
They keep trying to get a hypothesis generator to self audit rather than use another LLM to audit their processes and correct them.
Why isn’t that happening? Because it’s too damned expensive already…. (really). So they are twiddling with minor improvements in the algorithm because they don’t know any better.
We do. But it’s taking us time to finish the solution to the problem for them. (And while we are happy to chat in public like this, we aren’t really interested in joining into the hype game. It’s all nonsense.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-02 06:17:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006973015620542793
As I have said, as far as I know I’m the existing expert on the sex differences in perception cognition and speech – particularly in deception – and I recognize that the ashkenazim are employing the female means of sedition. The question is whether like women it’s genetic (neurological) or cultural or both. I assume it’s both since it doesn’t dissipate with outbreeding.
Regardless, I do not see the world lacking women, nor the absence of the feminine cognition in other populations.
I just want to know what to do about their sedition in an era where we have hyper-regulated male anti-social and anti-political behavior but enabled and encoursaged the female versions of it.
The present civilizational crisis is the result of the combination of the introgression of jewish thought combined with the introgression of women into the franchise and the economy.
It’s simple really.
The question is what do we do to accomodate evolutionary differences that may be almost impossible to regulate?
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-02 01:02:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006893953669611863
I am not sure savants (correctly ‘idiot savants’) have any such conception. They have a more autistic near-rage at irreducibility to their frame. If you mean savants proper it really depends if they’re on the autistic spectrum or just very smart (ie: Terrance Tao). If they’re very smart they usually have a very practical understanding of their position. I think the problem we might consider is that very bright people are often aware that they have specialized in domain, where the signal of a ‘not so smart’ is someone who seems to believe expertise in one domain is transferrable to another – which is most of the problem with academics.
In economics we are sort of forced out of this, as are some people in physics – because specialization turns out to require very different premises in different sub-specializations. So questions like ‘x economists or y physicists’ are relatively stupid questions, since in each subdomain there are probably only two or three people of extraordinary competency and the rest have only familiarity. This is untrue in the soft sciences, and certainly in the liberal arts.
Source date (UTC): 2026-01-01 22:50:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006860586144116962
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-31 07:34:28 UTC
Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/2006267698129559773
A SAD INSIGHT INTO MARRIAGE
While women will be attracted to men of agency (power) that provides them with security and consumption, the degree of that asymmetry of ‘power’ determines how the degree of defensiveness to hostility she will treat you upon breakup or divorce.
Like most men I love all my ex’s. The opposite isn’t true. And if it is, then the asymmetry of power wasn’t and isn’t present.
How do the sexes manage to get along without the need for reciprocal caretaking? We know ‘marriage’ is a product of agrarianism and it’s demand for property (assets) as a guarantor of survival.
But will we continue to regress to serial monogamy and destroy the institution of the family that is necessary for the high investment parenting that makes a complex civil society possible? Because it turns out that children from single mothers are effectively a danger to that order of civilization. Whereas single fathers will almost certainly remarry and restore the family order.
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-30 19:12:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2006081053958787076
RL: (a) very few people think in the sense you mean it – I’ve seen estimates but they are so depressing it’s frightening. (b) nearly all people are like fish who are unaware of the water so to speak, and as such are merely reflecting what is normative and useful for them (c) women conform (now) rather than understand the consequences (later) (c) women project (self) rather than empathize (others). (d) actually reasoning puts people in conflict they want to avoid at all costs (e) not enough men are skilled enough to compensate argumentatively and as such they respond dismissively and morally. (that’s your job to educate them. lol)
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-30 04:45:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2005862793157955935
I push back on McGilchrist frequently because I’m aware of his agenda:
1. hemispheric bias … just bias, not exclusive specialization. Also, in the visual cortex (back of the brain, largely no. Sex differences do appear here in amplitude and tas evoked activation. once we move beyond v1 (think of the back of the brain as an archery target with rings radiating out from the center) we start to see some predicted biases such as right face bias vs left word-form. These are matters of degree only.
2. The bias becomes more obvious in connectivity: male specialization within hemispheric connection, vs female generalization which connects the hemispheres. It’s actually hemispherically integrated (f/r/more-slow/in-time) vs hemispherically specialized (m/l/less-fast/over-time)
3. This results in systematizing (over time) vs empathizing (in time). Brain organization constrains bias in processing. Brain is organized in utero and in early development.
4. Correct model that reflects universal sex differences in behavior is predator (m/left) bias vs prey (f/right) bias.
All that said, defeating McGilchrist’s ‘fictionalism’ is rather easy: (via CurtGPT)
1. Category error: hemispheric lateralization is an implementation feature of distributed networks; it is not a pair of epistemic agents. Treating hemispheres as agents confuses mechanism with narrative.
2. Level conflation: claims about civilization-scale “modes of being” cannot be inferred from circuit-level lateralization without a bridging model that specifies intermediate levels (policy, incentives, institutions). Without that bridge, it is a storytelling leap.
3. Non-uniqueness: even where lateralization exists, multiple architectures can implement the same policy. Therefore “left vs right” cannot be the explanatory primitive. Incentives and loss functions must be.
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-27 08:23:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2004830509629931880
“IT JUST MIGHT BE THE CASE THAT WOMEN ARE MORE DISCONTENT THAN MEN ARE.”
(relationships, divorce, the family)
–“dissatisfaction that women experience is rooted in inappropriate expectations. Women have been sold a bill of goods about work and relationships. And when they find that dating and jobs don’t live up to these expectations, they tend to believe that there is something wrong with that particular relationship or with that particular company or with that particular culture or that particular worldview in which that particular relationship or company are operated rather than with their unrealistic expectations.”–
We’ve know it’s female neuroticism for decades. But the use of false promise in order to use women for political purposes against their own interests is not only the technique used by women – it’s the one used most against them. The combination of neuroticism, female pursuit of hyperconsumption (attention, novelty, consumption), and resulting dysregulation in the absence of social limitation (external regulation) has almost destroyed our civilization from within.
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-26 18:02:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2004613884527931409
1) Women in the workforce
2) Women in universities consuming largely gut courses. Partly to do with the prohibition on IQ and personality tests for admission to jobs, which are trivial costs and produce the same selection process.
3) Creating debt sufficient to cover a house purchase.
4) To provide sufficient surplus to tax to pay for elites, to discourage saving, and to create dependency upon redistribution, that is close to bankrupting us because we are not producing sufficient children to pay off the debt.
5) The increases in mortgage duration raising housing prices and total costs.
6) Unnecessary concentration of population in cities creating spatial costs (housing) in order to access lower opportunity costs (proximity), made possible by debt both both personal and governmental.
7) Immigration suppressing entry level and low skill employment that effectively shift lifetime earnings for the natural population downward.
8) All suppressing the capacity to bear children. ANd while we think the cost of children has increased, it’s not meainingful. the increase has been about 16%. It’s the cost of everything else from housing, mortgages, appliances, cars, to taxes, and now to food and electricity that has increased while real wages (purchasing power) have remained stagnant. 1979 earnings equate to ~$1,039 weekly today—barely enough for one person’s modern living costs, let alone family expenses like child-rearing. To compare affordability, a 2025 family with two median earners (~$39,000 annual each, pre-tax) faces tighter budgets than in 1960, when one earner often sufficed.
Since 1960, the real (inflation-adjusted) total cost of raising a child to age 17 has increased by about 16% (from ~$202,000 to ~$234,000 in 2015 dollars), but this masks stark shifts across categories. Basic necessities like food and clothing have declined as shares of the total budget due to technological efficiencies, global supply chains, and economies of scale. In contrast, service-oriented categories like child care/education and health care have surged, driven by structural changes (e.g., more dual-income families needing child care, medical inflation) and rising expectations for child outcomes.
The bit ‘hits’ have been:
– Health care: +155%
– Child Care and Education: 1,175%
We have also passed the ‘solve consumption’ phase of the industrial revolution. We have entered the ‘signaling phase’ as consumption of goods and services has been exhausted even by the poor who have dishwashers and televisions and cars, despite that it makes us unhappy. We have made a future with our present benefits impossible by doing so.
The net net is that the total economic contribution of women to the work force, on top of spending 70% of household income, and consuming 70% of government services, has resulted in debt provision for education, radical expense inflation for children, destroyed dating, marriage, and the family, while married white men over 35 are the only net contributors to taxation (consume less than they produce).
We can’t afford women in the workforce at the cost of bearing children because it’s all consumed by taxes and child and healthcare.
Source date (UTC): 2025-12-24 21:22:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2003939360241340695