RT @hoeberian: @curtdoolittle Re-phrasing: Women can afford to be more aggressive because consequences are lower (not gonna get hit probabl…
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-28 16:58:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453768207358210056
Talking about it is cathartic, and so it helps. But sitting there and watching a bunch of very bad very broken, very infantilized women, and very exasperated disenfranchsed political persecuted men who are victims of Mx-Pomo-Woke Decivilizational Warfare is crushing.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-28 16:57:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453767881863438336
Reply addressees: @EricLiford
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453766044196249601
I see even Peterson has come out with this repeatedly now: women are more aggressive than men, it’s just cognitive, behavioral, and social aggression rather than physical.
I don’t think we have any concept of how self-regulatory the sh-t test is. Esp via hyperconsumption.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-28 14:48:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453735458836410371
Also artsy girls are less likely to have been indoctrinated. They may be liberal in the sense that they retain feminine bias of care, which is wonderful. The only bad relationship I had (first wife) was because I thought she was artsy but it was just signaling on her part.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-28 14:46:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453734925627105282
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453732705221287952
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
Me? I was pretty simple and consistent. Conservative, artsy girls. Arts, crafts, jewelry, writing. Doesn’t matter. Women into the arts tend to have a creative rather than consumptive disposition. But again, class driven behavior. *Lower class means simpler means of stimulation.*
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1453732705221287952
BTW: this is the scientific framing of Nietzche’s ‘master vs slave morality’.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-28 14:34:24 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107179649578082466
Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107179638942061536
IN REPLY TO:
@curtd
CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS JUST THE PRESENT APPLICATION OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF REBELLION BY THE FEMININE MIDDLE EAST AGAINST THE MASCULINE INDO EUROPEANS. No matter how we describe it or how we name it: 1) “The female method of anti-social behavior, converted to a means of anti-social wafare”, 2) “The Revolutionary Spirit”, 3) Communism, Leninism, Neo-Marxism, Postmodernism, Anti-Male feminism, PC-Woke, Critical Race Theory. These are all the single technique of rallying the margins to destroy cooperation between sexes, classes, ethnicities, and races, by the false promise that “after indo europeans”, “after rome”, or “after white men”, we can violate the laws of the universe: 1) the formal sciences (logic), 2) the physical sciences (scarcity), 3) the behavioral sciences (acquisition, cooperation, division of labor, by sovereignty in demonstrated interestsa and reciprocity within the limits of proportionality) 4) the evolutionary sciences (sex, class, ethnicity, and race differeinces. mutational load is almost always negative, and drifts downward into the lower classes. natural selection by sortition and control of reproduction is necessary to prevent regression to the mean. Markets by internal forces are the substitute for natural selection by external forces. we must always defeat the red queen, and we have a narrow time frame in which to do so before this hostile climate, geology, solar system, and galacy visit upon us another extinction event. It’s a beautiful lie. A desirable lie. It allows the enemies of our people our civlization and human evolution to blame us for the laws of nature, when it is our discovery, adaptation to, application of, and evolution by those laws of nature that allows those of ‘infantilized mind’ to have the privilge to undermine rather than disappear into ashes and dust.
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107179638942061536
KNOWLEDGE THAT WE DONT ALWAYS WANT TO HAVE 😉
Why did y’all encourage me to work on the dating, mating, marrying problem? It’s depressing.Seriously. But, as in anything, disambiguation(decomposition) of the problem provides insights into females more so than males, as to just how much we’re bots and how simple the algorithm.
I mean for example, the female instinct is to maximize consumption so she and hers won’t be left behind, just as much as the male instinct is to maximize capital. So in any condition where the female can hyper-consumer without social regulation of it, she will do so on instinct.
But this understanding still provides just the first principle, the causal axis of her behavior.What it doesn’t tell us is that this hyperconsumption is the result of the infant stage, and is produced by our tendency both male and female to coddle girls and women:infantilization.
And what this understanding of infantilization doesn’t tell us directly, is that the difference between the classes is biological limitation on development causing infantilization of self regulation – at least on the conscientiousness axis.
So this is why we see Christians (continuous training in adult responsibility for self, family, commons) producing families across the classes, and conservatives doing it out of instinct and tradition.We see infantilization across the progressive spectrum: responsibility evasion.
So conservatism (adulting by capitalization) vs progressivism (infantilization by hyperconsumption) are biological intuitionistic and cognitive biases that have sexual origins in cognitive dimorphism, and the competition between them in reciprocity calculating ‘optimums’.
So, the algorithm for human behavior is extremely simple but because we have such large brains, capable of such exhaustive generalization, we can apply that algorithm endlessly as we can apply language in infinite permutation. But w/o reciprocity we get F:’cancer’ vs M:’aging’
And I’ll use that Female: Cancer vs Male: Aging as the biological equivalent of the unregulated expression of female hyperconsumption and infatilization vs male hypercapitalization, and …again… reciprocal exchange discovering the continuously moving equilibrium between them.
At some point, ‘sciencing’ mankind is increasingly depressing. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-28 14:03:51 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107179529449730144
And I’ll use that Female:Cancer vs Male:Aging as the biological equivalent of the unregulated expression of female hyperconsumption and infatilization vs male hypercapitalization, and …again… reciprocal exchange discovering the continuously moving equilibrium between them
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-28 13:54:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453721920055111682
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453721500448530432
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
So, the algorithm for human behavior is extremely simple but because we have such large brains, capable of such exhaustive generalization, we can apply that algorithm endlessly as we can apply language in infinite permutation. But w/o reciprocity we get F:’cancer’ vs M:’aging’
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1453721500448530432
So, the algorithm for human behavior is extremely simple but because we have such large brains, capable of such exhaustive generalization, we can apply that algorithm endlessly as we can apply language in infinite permutation. But w/o reciprocity we get F:’cancer’ vs M:’aging’
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-28 13:53:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453721500448530432
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453720984070942729
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
So conservatism (adulting by capitalization) vs progressivism (infantilization by hyperconsumption) are biological intuitionistic and cognitive biases that have sexual origins in cognitive dimorphism, and the competition between them in reciprocity calculating ‘optimums’.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1453720984070942729
So conservatism (adulting by capitalization) vs progressivism (infantilization by hyperconsumption) are biological intuitionistic and cognitive biases that have sexual origins in cognitive dimorphism, and the competition between them in reciprocity calculating ‘optimums’.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-28 13:51:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453720984070942729
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453720610178158603
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
So this is why we see Christians (continuous training in adult responsibility for self, family, commons) producing families across the classes, and conservatives doing it out of instinct and tradition.We see infantilization across the progressive spectrum: responsibility evasion.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1453720610178158603
So this is why we see Christians (continuous training in adult responsibility for self, family, commons) producing families across the classes, and conservatives doing it out of instinct and tradition.We see infantilization across the progressive spectrum: responsibility evasion.
Source date (UTC): 2021-10-28 13:49:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453720610178158603
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453720141456297991
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
And what this understanding of infantilization doesn’t tell us directly, is that the difference between the classes is biological limitation on development causing infantilization of self regulation – at least on the conscientiousness axis.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1453720141456297991