Given universal kin selection and ingroup bias, and given predictable hierarchy of sexual, social, economic, and political market values, determined by those traits, we are socially(normatively), economically(competitively), and politically (demands for commons), incompatible.
Reply addressees: @evrythingstays @Steve_Sailer
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
Given universal kin selection and ingroup bias, and given predictable hierarchy
-
Given universal kin selection and ingroup bias, and given predictable hierarchy
Given universal kin selection and ingroup bias, and given predictable hierarchy of sexual, social, economic, and political market values, determined by those traits, we are socially(normatively), economically(competitively), and politically (demands for commons), incompatible.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-31 19:39:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267178822698520576
Reply addressees: @evrythingstays @Steve_Sailer
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267178489897201665
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@evrythingstays @Steve_Sailer The result being that rates and depths of sexual maturity, resulting agency, resulting trait distributions, particularly conscientiousness and intelligence produce different ‘challenges’ in normalizing behavior between groups.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1267178489897201665
-
The result being that rates and depths of sexual maturity, resulting agency, res
The result being that rates and depths of sexual maturity, resulting agency, resulting trait distributions, particularly conscientiousness and intelligence produce different ‘challenges’ in normalizing behavior between groups.
Reply addressees: @evrythingstays @Steve_Sailer -
The result being that rates and depths of sexual maturity, resulting agency, res
The result being that rates and depths of sexual maturity, resulting agency, resulting trait distributions, particularly conscientiousness and intelligence produce different ‘challenges’ in normalizing behavior between groups.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-31 19:37:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267178489897201665
Reply addressees: @evrythingstays @Steve_Sailer
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267177565048930304
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@evrythingstays @Steve_Sailer The truth is social science is obvious because stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science, because they survive daily falsification by millions of us. That said, data matches the stereotypes. But It wasn’t until genetics we knew why: Neoteny & Class Distribution.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1267177565048930304
-
The truth is social science is obvious because stereotypes are the most accurate
The truth is social science is obvious because stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science, because they survive daily falsification by millions of us. That said, data matches the stereotypes. But It wasn’t until genetics we knew why: Neoteny & Class Distribution.
Reply addressees: @evrythingstays @Steve_Sailer -
The truth is social science is obvious because stereotypes are the most accurate
The truth is social science is obvious because stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science, because they survive daily falsification by millions of us. That said, data matches the stereotypes. But It wasn’t until genetics we knew why: Neoteny & Class Distribution.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-31 19:34:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267177565048930304
Reply addressees: @evrythingstays @Steve_Sailer
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266979089770065920
-
the question is why we choose. the answer is self-selection by ability
the question is why we choose. the answer is self-selection by ability.
Reply addressees: @Aurini -
the question is why we choose. the answer is self-selection by ability
the question is why we choose. the answer is self-selection by ability.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-31 18:08:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267156021321125890
Reply addressees: @Aurini
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267155670282821638
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Aurini Parable > mythology > theology > dogmatics
Textualism > sophistry > philosophy > rationalism
Epics > Records > Histories > Historiography
Law > economics > politics > group strategy > war
Math > logic > models > algorithms > simulations
Physics > chem > bio >cogsci > grammarsOriginal post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1267155670282821638
-
Media and Plausible Deniability
1 – We all prefer novelty, attention, and status over income within the limits of our moral plausible deniability. 2 – We will prefer novelty, attention, and status, AND income, even if we exceed the limits of moral plausible deniability. 3 – End Plausible Deniability: “Name Names.” And Shame.
-
Media and Plausible Deniability
1 – We all prefer novelty, attention, and status over income within the limits of our moral plausible deniability. 2 – We will prefer novelty, attention, and status, AND income, even if we exceed the limits of moral plausible deniability. 3 – End Plausible Deniability: “Name Names.” And Shame.