Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • Our Denial of Natural Classes

    Hmm.. our denial of natural classes and the western tradition of tripartism (now quadripartism) and the differences in ability between those classes has been created by the marxist(class), feminist (gender) postmodernist (identity, race) project to undermine class cooperation that allows for at least some class rotation, rather than preventing it with castes.

  • “The crazy notion that overlapping distributions can still have divergent centra

    —“The crazy notion that overlapping distributions can still have divergent central tendencies and dispersion. It’s almost as if statistical reasoning doesn’t stop at the door just because we want it to.”—Duke Newcomb

  • “The crazy notion that overlapping distributions can still have divergent centra

    —“The crazy notion that overlapping distributions can still have divergent central tendencies and dispersion. It’s almost as if statistical reasoning doesn’t stop at the door just because we want it to.”—Duke Newcomb

  • “The crazy notion that overlapping distributions can still have divergent centra

    —“The crazy notion that overlapping distributions can still have divergent central tendencies and dispersion. It’s almost as if statistical reasoning doesn’t stop at the door just because we want it to.”—Duke Newcomb

  • “The crazy notion that overlapping distributions can still have divergent centra

    —“The crazy notion that overlapping distributions can still have divergent central tendencies and dispersion. It’s almost as if statistical reasoning doesn’t stop at the door just because we want it to.”—Duke Newcomb

  • The Past Challenge of Bringing Women Into, and Keeping Them In, Propertarianism

    The Past Challenge of Bringing Women Into, and Keeping Them In, Propertarianism https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/the-past-challenge-of-bringing-women-into-and-keeping-them-in-propertarianism-2/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 12:12:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267428815623589891

  • The Past Challenge of Bringing Women Into, and Keeping Them In, Propertarianism

    The Past Challenge of Bringing Women Into, and Keeping Them In, Propertarianism https://t.co/JJWU3kp42g

  • The Past Challenge of Bringing Women Into, and Keeping Them In, Propertarianism

    —“Enjoying your posts”— A very kind woman 😉

    Awesome. It’s very hard for us to keep women interested, so that makes me (and the leadership) very happy. Three reasons it’s challenging: (I need a reason to post this so I’ll seize the opportunity you’ve created.   ) The general strategy of restoring the compromise between the genders that makes raising children, family, civil society, harmonious society, possible tends to attract men falsifying the excesses of marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and denialism (political correctness) when masculine men always and everywhere think in systems and politics, and women in empathy and relationships means that if we don’t find women who’ve had strong fathers and brothers, that they too often cannot translate male systematizing and political speech(aggregates), and interpret it as personal speech, or and interpersonal speech and find this offensive. Worse, we can attract men with bad experiences making it worse. SO this is why I spend time writing about male and female relationships in economic terms so that we can return to a compromise between the genders rather than a see-saw of conflcit between extremes. Worse, I teach in the masculine method of competition using king of the hill games, taking positions i agree with, disagree with, or can go other way with, or which can be interpreted by me advocating both ways. This generates lots of masculine huffing and chuffing and flexing and dominance, which is how men love to learn and will value what they learn. And very few women like to play the king of the hill game. Most women tend to referee the men instead. And that’s probably our natural dispositions., So a woman has to be able to say ‘thats just silly man talk’ the same way men say ‘thats just silly women talk’ because we’re both expressing our genetic impulses instead of working on compromise through trades. The difference is that is almost universal for masculine men to say ‘men and women engage in silly man talk, and silly women talk and that’s ok’. And for evolutionary reasons – men fear only of force not words, and women primarily concerned with words, both for their own protection from other women, and for protection of their children on many levels – including preventing them from ‘learning what they can’t yet make use of’. I think part of our transition out of the more analytic content and more into the religious, social, and political application of p-law is helping our expansion. Very few people want to understand testimonial truth – and I’m not sure how many can. lol )

  • The Past Challenge of Bringing Women Into, and Keeping Them In, Propertarianism

    —“Enjoying your posts”— A very kind woman 😉

    Awesome. It’s very hard for us to keep women interested, so that makes me (and the leadership) very happy. Three reasons it’s challenging: (I need a reason to post this so I’ll seize the opportunity you’ve created.   ) The general strategy of restoring the compromise between the genders that makes raising children, family, civil society, harmonious society, possible tends to attract men falsifying the excesses of marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and denialism (political correctness) when masculine men always and everywhere think in systems and politics, and women in empathy and relationships means that if we don’t find women who’ve had strong fathers and brothers, that they too often cannot translate male systematizing and political speech(aggregates), and interpret it as personal speech, or and interpersonal speech and find this offensive. Worse, we can attract men with bad experiences making it worse. SO this is why I spend time writing about male and female relationships in economic terms so that we can return to a compromise between the genders rather than a see-saw of conflcit between extremes. Worse, I teach in the masculine method of competition using king of the hill games, taking positions i agree with, disagree with, or can go other way with, or which can be interpreted by me advocating both ways. This generates lots of masculine huffing and chuffing and flexing and dominance, which is how men love to learn and will value what they learn. And very few women like to play the king of the hill game. Most women tend to referee the men instead. And that’s probably our natural dispositions., So a woman has to be able to say ‘thats just silly man talk’ the same way men say ‘thats just silly women talk’ because we’re both expressing our genetic impulses instead of working on compromise through trades. The difference is that is almost universal for masculine men to say ‘men and women engage in silly man talk, and silly women talk and that’s ok’. And for evolutionary reasons – men fear only of force not words, and women primarily concerned with words, both for their own protection from other women, and for protection of their children on many levels – including preventing them from ‘learning what they can’t yet make use of’. I think part of our transition out of the more analytic content and more into the religious, social, and political application of p-law is helping our expansion. Very few people want to understand testimonial truth – and I’m not sure how many can. lol )

  • The Most Important Lesson from The Church Experience

    The most important lesson I’ve observed, and perhaps the most important, is that sitting still in church, and the social pressure of sitting still in church, no matter how hard it is, teaches us the meaning of ‘sacred’ which is ‘we have no rights of self fulfillment’. I think it is underrated, how much the respect we demonstrate for one another in religious ceremony translates to how we ALWAYS act in the commons – and I think the loss of this ‘sacredness’ and this training in the ‘submission’ by develops ‘agency’ over impulses such that we do not impose so many costs of self expression (hyper-consumption) on the commons and therefore the polity. You do know what group did this right? What one group undermined it? I do.