The Value Neutral Expression of The Female and Male Brains https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/the-value-neutral-expression-of-the-female-and-male-brains-2/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 16:19:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266766262383845376
Jan 18, 2020, 8:05 AM We can just as easily categorize the female brain and the male brain instead as breadth(experience, children)-first vs depth(time, environment)-first. When the paradigm you use is the high cost of brains, and high returns on brains, neural economy; division of reproductive, productive, and cognitive labor; economics of (returns on) cooperation; voluntary cooperation as calculation of group optimums; and reciprocity within the limits of proportionality as limits; and retaliation and altruistic punishment as the preservation of returns on cooperation then you no longer are the victim of intuition and animal instinct, and no longer criticize how people feel, think, or want – only whether they negotiate and cooperate truthfully and reciprocally – and that wanting others to feel, think and want on your terms is merely searching for an unearned discount.
Jan 18, 2020, 8:05 AM We can just as easily categorize the female brain and the male brain instead as breadth(experience, children)-first vs depth(time, environment)-first. When the paradigm you use is the high cost of brains, and high returns on brains, neural economy; division of reproductive, productive, and cognitive labor; economics of (returns on) cooperation; voluntary cooperation as calculation of group optimums; and reciprocity within the limits of proportionality as limits; and retaliation and altruistic punishment as the preservation of returns on cooperation then you no longer are the victim of intuition and animal instinct, and no longer criticize how people feel, think, or want – only whether they negotiate and cooperate truthfully and reciprocally – and that wanting others to feel, think and want on your terms is merely searching for an unearned discount.
Jan 18, 2020, 10:19 AM …(James Brittingham Says:) Under the nuclear family, individuals are asked to forgo the comfort, protection of large familiar networks, and women face the crucible of spending all day at home alone with infants, in order to pay our surplus production into a national, civilizational or global commons. Sorry but this is oppression. Mestizoes, Hassids, bourgeois Muslims, and the Amish all live much better than “legacy Americans”, and our interlopers can hardly be blamed for noticing this. …(Curt Doolittle Says:) Nuclear families in northern Europe just meant that you needed to afford a home before having children. So houses were nearby and communities swapped children to help each other all the time. So the entire community was an extended family. But your criticism is correct. Extended families, particularly three-generation families are optimum. To do that we must move capital to people not people to capital. …(Bill Joslin Says:) The break in the continuity of absolute nuclear families to their extended families results from urban planners and bankers in the 1920’s which closed the door on multifamily mortgages. The “anglo failure” of absolute nuclear families isn’t intrinsic to the ANF familial strategy but rather due to an extension of the strategy that inadvertently created it in the first place: i.e. usurping intergenerational transfer of wealth for those below the upper-middle class. The Anglo reaction to the influx in Irish and Italian migrants, both of which were accustomed to multigenerational homes, urban planners, and banks removed the possibility of a multigenerational home. Urban planners via design and zoning permits (i.e. zoning rental buildings as “single-family dwellings” and banks refusing mortgages issued that had more than a single nuclear family on the application. This prevented these migrants from pooling resources and labor to make a stake and establish themselves quickly to American life. It insured the municipalities and landlords capitalized on the new population growth. every generation would pay their rent and live separately as a result. Similarly, the church outlawing cousin marriages, a few centuries before, pertained to land and estate grabs by the church. An inheritance that would be handed to the next generation now went to the church. In both cases, the multigenerational home was dismantled in an effort to break them apart as single economic units in order to extract more wealth from them.
Jan 18, 2020, 10:19 AM …(James Brittingham Says:) Under the nuclear family, individuals are asked to forgo the comfort, protection of large familiar networks, and women face the crucible of spending all day at home alone with infants, in order to pay our surplus production into a national, civilizational or global commons. Sorry but this is oppression. Mestizoes, Hassids, bourgeois Muslims, and the Amish all live much better than “legacy Americans”, and our interlopers can hardly be blamed for noticing this. …(Curt Doolittle Says:) Nuclear families in northern Europe just meant that you needed to afford a home before having children. So houses were nearby and communities swapped children to help each other all the time. So the entire community was an extended family. But your criticism is correct. Extended families, particularly three-generation families are optimum. To do that we must move capital to people not people to capital. …(Bill Joslin Says:) The break in the continuity of absolute nuclear families to their extended families results from urban planners and bankers in the 1920’s which closed the door on multifamily mortgages. The “anglo failure” of absolute nuclear families isn’t intrinsic to the ANF familial strategy but rather due to an extension of the strategy that inadvertently created it in the first place: i.e. usurping intergenerational transfer of wealth for those below the upper-middle class. The Anglo reaction to the influx in Irish and Italian migrants, both of which were accustomed to multigenerational homes, urban planners, and banks removed the possibility of a multigenerational home. Urban planners via design and zoning permits (i.e. zoning rental buildings as “single-family dwellings” and banks refusing mortgages issued that had more than a single nuclear family on the application. This prevented these migrants from pooling resources and labor to make a stake and establish themselves quickly to American life. It insured the municipalities and landlords capitalized on the new population growth. every generation would pay their rent and live separately as a result. Similarly, the church outlawing cousin marriages, a few centuries before, pertained to land and estate grabs by the church. An inheritance that would be handed to the next generation now went to the church. In both cases, the multigenerational home was dismantled in an effort to break them apart as single economic units in order to extract more wealth from them.
Origins of Homosexuality https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/30/origins-of-homosexuality/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-30 16:08:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266763371258544130
Jan 24, 2020, 8:57 PM (for some reason jayman is countersigning and I haven’t figured out why yet) Again: This is because as far as I know, homosexuality is an in utero developmental failure that was insufficient to produce either male brain or miscarriage. The two most common theories attribute this to immune system responses to internal (genetic) or external (viral) stimulus.
—“No that’s not what it is, nor does that make any sense whatsoever. That said male and female same-sex attraction likely do have different etiology”—JayMan @JayMan471 It makes perfect sense. AFAIK immune response, possibly to T. That doesn’t mean it’s true. If you have a better body of science to work from then I’d love to see it. But this is a subject I’ve followed for three decades, and the two theories are still out there working. —“[See] Greg Cochran’s “Gay Germ” Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs”—JayMan @JayMan471 Agreed. That doesn’t nullify the (a) runs in families (b) second son, (c) testosterone and immune system theories. As for the viral is merely that I can’t falsify the hypothesis, so I’m not willing to take it off the shelf. And BTW: Nothing in that set of articles or any other, undermines the hypothesis that (like cervical cancer by viral transmission) that there isn’t some other immune trigger either heritable or environmental that produces the defect in development. BTW 2: So far in the two or three times you’ve disagreed with me it’s because you are rushing to judgment. I realize that the world is full of idiots you must defend your time and space against. But I’m not one of them. -hugs This paper is accessible, from 2016, and summarizes the findings from across the decades. It’s rather obvious that “The fraternal-birth-order effect” is currently the most convincing cause, and its heritability, a most convincing vulnerability.’Meta-analysis: Homosexual men's, but not homosexual women's cognitive performance was closer to that of heterosexual individuals of the opposite sex. https://t.co/Ni34yPILMK pic.twitter.com/cqHXoAVF3B
— Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf) January 24, 2020
Jan 24, 2020, 8:57 PM (for some reason jayman is countersigning and I haven’t figured out why yet) Again: This is because as far as I know, homosexuality is an in utero developmental failure that was insufficient to produce either male brain or miscarriage. The two most common theories attribute this to immune system responses to internal (genetic) or external (viral) stimulus.
—“No that’s not what it is, nor does that make any sense whatsoever. That said male and female same-sex attraction likely do have different etiology”—JayMan @JayMan471 It makes perfect sense. AFAIK immune response, possibly to T. That doesn’t mean it’s true. If you have a better body of science to work from then I’d love to see it. But this is a subject I’ve followed for three decades, and the two theories are still out there working. —“[See] Greg Cochran’s “Gay Germ” Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs”—JayMan @JayMan471 Agreed. That doesn’t nullify the (a) runs in families (b) second son, (c) testosterone and immune system theories. As for the viral is merely that I can’t falsify the hypothesis, so I’m not willing to take it off the shelf. And BTW: Nothing in that set of articles or any other, undermines the hypothesis that (like cervical cancer by viral transmission) that there isn’t some other immune trigger either heritable or environmental that produces the defect in development. BTW 2: So far in the two or three times you’ve disagreed with me it’s because you are rushing to judgment. I realize that the world is full of idiots you must defend your time and space against. But I’m not one of them. -hugs This paper is accessible, from 2016, and summarizes the findings from across the decades. It’s rather obvious that “The fraternal-birth-order effect” is currently the most convincing cause, and its heritability, a most convincing vulnerability.’Meta-analysis: Homosexual men's, but not homosexual women's cognitive performance was closer to that of heterosexual individuals of the opposite sex. https://t.co/Ni34yPILMK pic.twitter.com/cqHXoAVF3B
— Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf) January 24, 2020
Jan 28, 2020, 12:09 PM I will keep a cow or two in the yard and feed it well. I will kill the cow by standard method. It will never know it’s going to be harmed or experience anything. They are frequently manipulated by vets and others. I will have a butcher come to the yard with his truck and clean the cow, returning me the usual amount of about say, for cattle 58-62% , hogs 74% and market lambs 54%., and for cattle close to half as hamburger. doing so requires sunlight and grass, and maybe some agricultural feed. This does not require chemistry and energy or other man-made substitutes that are costly in energy to produce. This is the healthiest method of eating available to man. If we buy and raise two young cows at a time, and keep a large freezer, they will have company and be happy the whole time. They are cows. DATA The average American eats 200 lbs a year. (I eat more than that) With an average market (live or on hoof) weight of 1,150 lbs and the average yield of 62.2%, the typical steer will produce a 715 lb. (dressed weight) carcass. The dressed beef (or carcass) will yield approximately 569 lbs. (further details below) of red meat and trim (take-home meat – which includes the average weight of 27 lbs of variety meat: liver, heart, tongue, tripe, sweetbreads, and brains) and 146 lbs of fat, bone and loss. This is roughly a yield of 80% from the dressed or hanging weight – this is for a VERY LEAN Beef. A High Quality, USDA Choice Beef will yield approximately 70% of the Hanging or Dressed Weight. The yield on the take-home meat weight from the live weight of the (VERY LEAN) steer is approximately 50%. Chuck – 209.5 lbs total, which is 29% of the dressed/hanging/carcass weight: Blade Roasts and Steaks 33.9 lbs. Ground Beef and Stew Meat 83.3 lbs. Arm Pot Roasts and Steaks 35.5 lbs. Cross Rib Pot Roast 25.4 lbs. Fat and Bones 31.4 lbs. Round – 155.8 lbs. total, which is 22% of the dressed/hanging/carcass weight: Top Round 34.6 lbs. Bottom Round 31.2 lbs. Tip 16.8 lbs. Rump 7.8 lbs. Ground Beef 33.4 lbs. Fat and Bones 32 lbs. Thin Cuts – 134.6 lbs. total, which is 19% of the dressed/hanging/carcass weight: Flank Steak 3.6 lbs. Pastrami Squares 2.9 lbs. Outside Skirt 2.2 lbs. Inside skirt 2.5 lbs. Boneless Brisket 16 lbs. Ground Beef and Stew Meat 87.3 lbs Fat and Bone 20.1 lbs. Short Loin – 115.7 lbs. total, which is 16% of the dressed/hanging/carcass weight: Porterhouse Steak 19.6 lbs. T-bone Steak 9.8 lbs. Strip Steak 15 lbs. Sirloin Steak 15.3 lbs. Tenderloin Steak 6.8 lbs. Ground Beef and Stew Meat 22.7 lbs. Fat and Bone 26.5 lbs. Rib – 66.6 lbs. total, which is 9% of the dressed/hanging/carcass weight: Rib Roast 23.9 lbs. Rib Steak 9.2 lbs. Short Ribs 8.6 lbs. Ground Beef and Stew Meat 16.5 lbs. Fat and Bone 8.4 lbs. Miscellaneous – 32.7 lbs. total, which is 5% of the dressed/hanging/carcass weight: Kidney and Hanging Tender 4.9 lbs. Fat, Suet and Cutting Loss 27.8 lbs.
Jan 28, 2020, 12:09 PM I will keep a cow or two in the yard and feed it well. I will kill the cow by standard method. It will never know it’s going to be harmed or experience anything. They are frequently manipulated by vets and others. I will have a butcher come to the yard with his truck and clean the cow, returning me the usual amount of about say, for cattle 58-62% , hogs 74% and market lambs 54%., and for cattle close to half as hamburger. doing so requires sunlight and grass, and maybe some agricultural feed. This does not require chemistry and energy or other man-made substitutes that are costly in energy to produce. This is the healthiest method of eating available to man. If we buy and raise two young cows at a time, and keep a large freezer, they will have company and be happy the whole time. They are cows. DATA The average American eats 200 lbs a year. (I eat more than that) With an average market (live or on hoof) weight of 1,150 lbs and the average yield of 62.2%, the typical steer will produce a 715 lb. (dressed weight) carcass. The dressed beef (or carcass) will yield approximately 569 lbs. (further details below) of red meat and trim (take-home meat – which includes the average weight of 27 lbs of variety meat: liver, heart, tongue, tripe, sweetbreads, and brains) and 146 lbs of fat, bone and loss. This is roughly a yield of 80% from the dressed or hanging weight – this is for a VERY LEAN Beef. A High Quality, USDA Choice Beef will yield approximately 70% of the Hanging or Dressed Weight. The yield on the take-home meat weight from the live weight of the (VERY LEAN) steer is approximately 50%. Chuck – 209.5 lbs total, which is 29% of the dressed/hanging/carcass weight: Blade Roasts and Steaks 33.9 lbs. Ground Beef and Stew Meat 83.3 lbs. Arm Pot Roasts and Steaks 35.5 lbs. Cross Rib Pot Roast 25.4 lbs. Fat and Bones 31.4 lbs. Round – 155.8 lbs. total, which is 22% of the dressed/hanging/carcass weight: Top Round 34.6 lbs. Bottom Round 31.2 lbs. Tip 16.8 lbs. Rump 7.8 lbs. Ground Beef 33.4 lbs. Fat and Bones 32 lbs. Thin Cuts – 134.6 lbs. total, which is 19% of the dressed/hanging/carcass weight: Flank Steak 3.6 lbs. Pastrami Squares 2.9 lbs. Outside Skirt 2.2 lbs. Inside skirt 2.5 lbs. Boneless Brisket 16 lbs. Ground Beef and Stew Meat 87.3 lbs Fat and Bone 20.1 lbs. Short Loin – 115.7 lbs. total, which is 16% of the dressed/hanging/carcass weight: Porterhouse Steak 19.6 lbs. T-bone Steak 9.8 lbs. Strip Steak 15 lbs. Sirloin Steak 15.3 lbs. Tenderloin Steak 6.8 lbs. Ground Beef and Stew Meat 22.7 lbs. Fat and Bone 26.5 lbs. Rib – 66.6 lbs. total, which is 9% of the dressed/hanging/carcass weight: Rib Roast 23.9 lbs. Rib Steak 9.2 lbs. Short Ribs 8.6 lbs. Ground Beef and Stew Meat 16.5 lbs. Fat and Bone 8.4 lbs. Miscellaneous – 32.7 lbs. total, which is 5% of the dressed/hanging/carcass weight: Kidney and Hanging Tender 4.9 lbs. Fat, Suet and Cutting Loss 27.8 lbs.