Form: Critique

  • No. –“Aristocratic: The term “aristocratic” refers to the qualities, characteri

    No.
    –“Aristocratic: The term “aristocratic” refers to the qualities, characteristics, and behaviors associated with the aristocracy or its individual members. Aristocratic individuals are often perceived as possessing a sense of refinement, sophistication, and superiority that sets them apart from the common people.
    Aristocratic behavior is characterized by a strict adherence to social norms, etiquette, and hierarchy. Aristocrats are expected to display grace, poise, and a mastery of the arts and sciences befitting their station. They often cultivate an air of detachment and aloofness, maintaining a distance from those they consider beneath them.

    Critics of aristocratic attitudes argue that they perpetuate social inequality, snobbery, and a disdain for the working classes. The aristocratic emphasis on lineage and inherited status is seen as antithetical to the principles of meritocracy and social mobility.

    However, defenders of aristocratic values argue that they preserve cultural traditions, encourage the pursuit of excellence, and provide a model of refined behavior for others to emulate. They claim that the aristocratic ethos, with its emphasis on honor, duty, and noblesse oblige, contributes to social cohesion and the maintenance of civilized standards.”–

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @AndreAn97444856 @MinClaydough


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-01 21:30:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774912163552866304

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1774883912960864541

  • Why are you so confident despite so obviously incompetent at comprehending the d

    Why are you so confident despite so obviously incompetent at comprehending the data? You made category errors in the last post and you’re doubling down in this post. How many Spartans were there compared to their Helots? How many Athenians vs the conquered and the slaves? What is the genetic composition between the Macedonians Athenians, Spartans, and Hittites? What difference in genetic composition between the Spartans and the helots, and what cultural (civilizational) differences were there, and even then in the cline from the core of western evolution (corded ware) in the north to expansion (because of sea trade) in greece the aegean islands and aegian anaatolia? What was the genetic composition of those indo europeans along that cline?

    You’ll keep using theh feminine left tactic of rolling accusation, despite each being falsified, you ignore that y ou’ve been wrong and keep attempting undermine by new aspersons. Defeating you idiots is time consuming but does serve to educate the audience as a byproduct.

    Are you sure you aren’t either Ashekanzi or possessing a vagina? 😉 I mean, you’re entirely feminine in cognition and speech.

    Reply addressees: @JakeLemons59660 @TabbyTeamster


    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-28 18:09:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1773412035729948673

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1773409197410906481

  • The most popular ‘gut’ degrees are in the behavioral ‘sciences’ and most of this

    The most popular ‘gut’ degrees are in the behavioral ‘sciences’ and most of this trash ‘science’ comes out of student and grad and postgrad ‘research’. It’s almost all junk.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-22 23:30:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1771318482019246447

    Reply addressees: @Nefertiiti

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1771316374419206155

  • It’s not concrete and testable enough. And this form of construction is used onl

    It’s not concrete and testable enough. And this form of construction is used only when trying to manipulate by use of conflation.

    The west consists of the natural religions, the germanic semi-formalization, the greco-roman formalization, and the greek philosophical formation, culminating in stoicism.

    The method for comparing civilizational differences consists of:
    1) Given the three means of coercion possible:
    … 1. Religion/Social by Seduction/Ostracization
    … 2. Economic by Trade/Boycott
    … 3. State by Defense/Violence
    2) Given the path dependence of institutional formation:
    … 1. Religion(Strong) > State(Weak) > Law(fail)
    … 2. Religion(Strong) > Law(Weak) > State(fail)
    … 3. State(Strong) > Religion(Weak) > Law (fail)
    … 4. State(Strong) > Law (Weak) > Religion (fail)
    … 5. Law(Strong) > Religion(Weak) > State (fail)
    … 6. Law(Strong) > State(weak) > Religion (fail)
    3) Given the Innovative ability of those institutions:
    … 1. Limited: Religion
    … 2. Only Under Stress: State
    … 3. Continuous: Law
    4) Given the adaptability of those institutions:
    … 1. Slow: Religion
    … 2. Medium: Law
    … 3. Fast: State
    5) Given the demographic composition of the polity (IQ):
    … Slow: Below Minimum (85) – no innovation or adaptation
    … Medium: Below Innovation (100) – adaptation
    … Fast: Above threshold (105) – innovation
    6) In addition:
    … Relationship between rulers and ruled (parasitic vs productive)
    … Homogeneity (good) vs Heterogeneity (bad)
    … Resources
    … Geography
    … Climate
    … Condition vs competing states.

    This determines the condition of the population.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @Saurabh_Shah1 @radiofreenw


    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-20 17:46:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770507251679174656

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770502259614310896

  • RE: Rudyard Lynch’s “Top 20 books which inform my worldview” I’m still thinking

    RE: Rudyard Lynch’s “Top 20 books which inform my worldview”
    https://t.co/SrPwcXRZMo

    I’m still thinking about this book list so I thought I’d make a few comments that might encourage others to read more of the list.

    Since I agree that most of them are necessary foundations I’ll talk about the outliers:

    RE: #1. War in Human Civilization by Azar Gat: – I usually recommend other authors, including both Kagan and Van Creveld, because I’m trying to explain why europeans do not know how to conduct warfare against other civilizations (and why we fail, and why we can’t expand by other than replacement),. That said, Anzar Gat instead raises the bar by explaining war in evolutionary context – which is a more useful general understanding of war without the usual baggage.

    RE: Missing: The Evolution of Civilizations by Carroll Quigley – I might be more affected by this work because it is closer to the reduction to first principles, and resulting economic and evolutionary models I rely upon.
    The same goes for Gary Becker’s a) Economic approach to human behavior b) human capital, and c) treatise on the family, and d) economics of life.
    This is perhaps the best examples of the difference between Rudyard and I: his priestly-platonic-literary and compassionate view of history and my aristocratic-aristotelian-scientific and dispassionate view of history – despite that we pretty much agree on everything. (Rule 1: Rudyard is almost always right. Rule 2: If you think not, then see Rule 1. Meaning that disagreeing with valuation is not the same as disagreeing with causalities and patterns. ;).

    RE: #2. Sex and Power in History by Amaury de Riencourt – This is a novel insight that I encourage because the feminists are correct that history is written as if only men exist (or matter). In my work I try to expose the sex differences in instincts, cognition, behavior, lying, conflict, and warfare. This book makes my job easier by clearly illustrating the consequences of two sexes. 😉 On the other hand, while I find I am overly criticized for my exposittion of destructive feminine behavior, and while it does bother me quite a bit to tear down the female pedestal, this book merely amplifies the fact that “while men are bad women are evil.”

    12. The Master and His Emissary by Ian McGhilchrist. I despise McGhilchrist for this book, just as I despise Sapolsky’s “Determined” arguing there is no free will. Both of these authors start with a grain of truth and bend it into a pseudoscience. That said, if you read either of tthose books you will learn something and Many people have done so. Ergo it’s better to learn something that’s half wrong, then to read nothing at all. ;). The hemispheric differences in brain structure are prey (right) and predator (left). The sex differences are generalization of prey vs specialization in predation. McGhilchrist’s attempt to evade that reality means all derivations from his premise are as biased as was Freud’s presumption we were all effeminate neurotic Ashkenazim.

    RE: # 16. The Invention of Yesterday by Tamim Ansary, “A history of the paradigms people have used over history” – This, again, is a novel lens through which to view history and human behavior. In my work I found it was a useful testing ground for the analysis of evolutionary expression of human justification for local adaptation. In other words, it’s an indirect insight into human psychology over time. Rudyard is, at least a bit, an apologist for Islam (or religion in general) and he is among the most devoted. This author is also an apologist (more than a bit). IMO just because a history exists and people justified it or survived it, tthat does not mean in the context of human history and evolution it’s not horrific. ;). I mean, I’m sure the Assyrians, Egyptians, Aztecs, Mongols, and Maori thought they were good people. Same for muslims. Despite their destruction and dysgenia that destroyed seven great civilizations of the ancient world and destroyed their fertile futures. 😉

    Every other book in this list is rock solid. I love this list because of its breadth. 😉

    So hopefully I was able to encourage you a bit. And also, please understand that I promote Rudyard because his is right. And we’re friends because he is right. I don’t promote him just because of our friendship. 😉 I’m not that nice. 😉

    Cheers
    Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-20 17:15:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1770499328672518144

  • Curtis Yarvin’s New Post Favoring (absolute) Monarchy I interpret Yarvin’s argum

    Curtis Yarvin’s New Post Favoring (absolute) Monarchy
    https://t.co/V4crM7UBxJ
    I interpret Yarvin’s argument, as I generally do all his arguments in this vein, as an admission of failure to understand the problem of contemporary governance, and discover and articulate a solution to it.

    While (you won’t agree) a republic (rule of law) with universal enfranchisement (mass democracy) appears to have been the failed experiment that the ancients warned us of, and while the rigidity of the US constitution and resulting houses of government have provided greater stability than the european parliamentary systems, that does not mean that we should abandon rule of law, the republic, participatory government, in favor of authoritarianism, or that we cannot, as our anglo ancestors have repeatedly demonstrated, simply change the constitution to correct for our failed optimism, and the sedition against our civilization, culture, people and institutions by the repetition of the christian destruction of the ancient world this time in the pseudoscientific method of the marxist sequence of seditions by false and impossible promise from the laws of scarcity, human behavior, and natural selection.

    It may take, as have the english revolution, and the american revolution, a threat of or escalation to conflict to do so but our system is not predicated upon personalities but rules encoded in law and the activism of the population to hold the state and those seditionists that undermined us accountable.

    We can, quite easily restore the monarchy as ‘outside the law in restoration of the law’ and achieve the same ends. And we can quite easily state the law with such precision and defended by such institutions that it is criminal for participants in government to even try to evade it.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-12 17:16:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1767600487602233344

  • Simply not true. Trump has said only that (a) he will end the war in the first 2

    Simply not true. Trump has said only that (a) he will end the war in the first 24 hours of ascending to the presidency (b) we are making a bad use of funds because of it (c) and europe should be paying the vast majority, not the USA.

    Trump always and everywhere keeps his negotiation position open. He does not make the public or his administration comfortable with laying down policy that they can manipulate. Instead, he seeks to establish personal relations with other heads of state and to use threats to drive the opposition party into a settlement.

    I can’t figure out for the life of my why, given trump wrote a book about it, people don’t grasp what trump is always and everywhere up to. (a) rally the base (b) preserve opportunity for one on one negotiations (c) pressure the administration to think creatively linstead of ‘traditionally’, (d) bait the opposition into educating the public when they attack him.

    I have no idea why people don’t grasp this strategy other than that they’ve never been in a position of power competing with others around the world who are often corrupt or full of malincentives.

    Reply addressees: @TheInsiderPaper


    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-11 18:10:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1767251880600543232

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1767236176753160263

  • Nothing here is anything but obvious. That you approach the subject from alterna

    Nothing here is anything but obvious. That you approach the subject from alternative positions does not mean you contribute novelty to the underlying understanding – which is simple.
    Female behavior can be reduced to about five first principles, and all demonstrated behavior constructed from it. (Sex differences as well)
    Unfortunately, quite by accident, I developed a specialization in female means of lying, and as a consequence cognition.
    Which itself is a fascinating field.
    Men and women are not complicated.
    It’s the erroneous premises we start with that cloud the issues with permutations of nonsense.

    Reply addressees: @SexyIsntSexist


    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-11 17:21:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1767239489171120128

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1767134060294594784

  • CLAUDE-OPUS 3 VS GPT4+ (BOTH PAID) Claude is MUCH smarter at present. Note that

    CLAUDE-OPUS 3 VS GPT4+ (BOTH PAID)
    Claude is MUCH smarter at present.
    Note that Claude3 correctly identified “Unambiguity” while GPT4 correctly identified “Empirical Rigor” but neither identified both.

    PROMPT FOR BOTH AIs
    “I use the term “testifiable prose” to refer to the set of criteria requiring:
    1. Complete Sentences
    2. In promissory form
    3. In testimonial form
    4. In operational vocabulary (as actions)
    5. From an observer’s point of view
    6. Absent the verb to-be (is, are, was, were…)
    7. Including all changes in state
    8. Including all consequences of change in state
    9. Producing a series of testable transactions.

    What can you derive from that set of requirements?”

    1) CLAUDE 3 RESPONSE
    Based on the set of criteria you provided for “testifiable prose,” I can derive several key implications and benefits:

    Clarity and specificity (Unambiguous): By requiring complete sentences in promissory and testimonial form, using operational vocabulary, and avoiding the verb “to be,” the prose becomes more precise and unambiguous. This helps to minimize misinterpretation and ensures that the ideas being conveyed are clear and specific.
    Objectivity (Observable, Empirical): By writing from an observer’s point of view, the prose maintains a sense of objectivity. This perspective helps to reduce bias and subjective interpretations, making the information more reliable and trustworthy.
    Actionable content: (Existentially Possible) The use of operational vocabulary (as actions) means that the prose focuses on concrete, observable behaviors or processes. This emphasis on actionable content makes the information more practical and applicable in real-world situations.
    Comprehensive account: (full accounting) By including all changes in state and their consequences, the prose provides a complete and comprehensive account of the subject matter. This thorough approach ensures that no important details are omitted, and readers have a full understanding of the situation or process being described.
    Testability and verification: (Testable) The requirement to produce a series of testable transactions means that the claims or statements made in the prose can be empirically validated. This testability is crucial for establishing the credibility and reliability of the information being presented.
    Logical consistency: (Consistent) The structured nature of the prose, with its focus on complete sentences, clear cause-and-effect relationships, and the inclusion of all relevant changes in state, promotes logical consistency. This consistency helps to ensure that the arguments or ideas presented are coherent and well-supported.
    Accessibility and engagement: (Comprehensible) While the prose may be more structured and formal than everyday language, the emphasis on clarity, specificity, and actionable content can make it more accessible and engaging for readers. By providing a clear and comprehensive account of the subject matter, the prose can effectively communicate complex ideas to a wide audience.
    Reproducibility: (Repeatable) The testability and comprehensive nature of the prose make it possible for others to reproduce the described processes or verify the claims made. This reproducibility is essential for building trust and credibility, as it allows for independent confirmation of the information presented.
    Foundational for further analysis: (Sound) The structured and comprehensive nature of testifiable prose provides a solid foundation for further analysis, discussion, and decision-making. By establishing a clear and reliable account of the subject matter, the prose enables more productive and informed conversations and actions.

    In summary, the set of criteria for testifiable prose helps to create a form of communication that is clear, specific, objective, actionable, comprehensive, testable, logically consistent, accessible, reproducible, and foundational for further analysis.

    These characteristics make testifiable prose a powerful tool for conveying information, arguments, and ideas in a manner that is both reliable and impactful.

    2) CHATGPT 4+ RESPONSE

    The concept of “testifiable prose,” as defined by your criteria, is an approach to writing that emphasizes clarity, precision, and accountability. It’s designed to ensure that every statement can be empirically tested or verified, thus holding the writer to a high standard of truthfulness and reliability. Here’s an analysis of each criterion and what it collectively suggests about testifiable prose:

    1. Complete Sentences
    This ensures that each thought or idea is fully formed and presented in a coherent manner, facilitating clarity and understanding.

    2. In Promissory Form
    Writing in promissory form implies a commitment to delivering specific outcomes or actions. It’s a way of making a clear, actionable promise that can be assessed for fulfillment.

    3. In Testimonial Form
    Incorporating testimonial form means that the prose is based on observable, verifiable facts or experiences. This enhances the credibility and reliability of the information presented.

    4. In Operational Vocabulary (as actions)
    Focusing on actions rather than abstract concepts ensures that the writing is grounded in real-world activities that can be observed, measured, and evaluated.

    5. From an Observer’s Point of View
    Adopting an observer’s perspective ensures objectivity and neutrality, making the prose less biased and more universally verifiable.

    6. Absent the Verb to-be (is, are, was, were…)
    Eliminating the verb “to be” avoids passive constructions and necessitates more precise and active language, which in turn makes the actions and outcomes clearer.

    7. Including All Changes in State
    Detailing all changes in state ensures that the narrative captures the full scope of events or actions, including any transitions or transformations that are crucial for understanding the sequence and impact of actions.

    8. Including All Consequences of Change in State
    By accounting for all consequences of changes in state, the prose commits to a comprehensive depiction of outcomes, enabling a thorough assessment of the actions’ impact.

    9. Producing a Series of Testable Transactions
    This criterion aims for the prose to result in statements that can be empirically tested or verified, grounding the narrative in factual accuracy and accountability.

    Collective Implications:

    Empirical Rigor: Testifiable prose demands a high level of empirical rigor, ensuring that every statement is anchored in observable and verifiable reality.

    Accountability: The approach fosters accountability in writing, as each claim or statement made can be tested against real-world outcomes or experiences.

    Clarity and Precision: By adhering to these criteria, the prose becomes clearer and more precise, leaving little room for ambiguity or misinterpretation.

    Action-Oriented: The focus on operational vocabulary and actions ensures that the writing is practical, actionable, and grounded in real-world processes.

    Objective and Unbiased: Writing from an observer’s perspective and emphasizing testable transactions promotes an objective and unbiased approach to conveying information.

    In summary, testifiable prose is a disciplined writing approach designed to enhance the clarity, accuracy, and reliability of information, making it particularly valuable in fields where empirical evidence and accountability are paramount.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-03-07 23:54:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1765888905516105728

  • Ignore this. It’s junk science. And it’s the opposite of the overwhelming data f

    Ignore this. It’s junk science. And it’s the opposite of the overwhelming data from dating sites. For all intents and purposes, whenever you see the word survey it’s junk science.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-28 00:40:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762638815884153040

    Reply addressees: @datepsych

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1762290537133121979