—“Personality measures were obtained from a large US sample (N = 10,261) with the 16PF Questionnaire. Multigroup latent variable modeling was used to estimate sex differences on individual personality dimensions, which were then aggregated to yield a multivariate effect size (Mahalanobis D). We found a global effect size D = 2.71, corresponding to an overlap of only 10% between the male and female distributions. Even excluding the factor showing the largest univariate ES, the global effect size was D = 1.71 (24% overlap). These are extremely large differences by psychological standards.”—
Form: Excerpt
-
Gender Differences in Personality
-
Wealth Causes Genders to Specialize Not Compromise
—”Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations (N = 17,637). On responses to the Big Five Inventory, women reported higher levels of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than did men across most nations. These findings converge with previous studies in which different Big Five measures and more limited samples of nations were used. Overall, higher levels of human development–including long and healthy life, equal access to knowledge and education, and economic wealth–were the main nation-level predictors of larger sex differences in personality. Changes in men’s personality traits appeared to be the primary cause of sex difference variation across cultures. It is proposed that heightened levels of sexual dimorphism result from personality traits of men and women being less constrained and more able to naturally diverge in developed nations. In less fortunate social and economic conditions, innate personality differences between men and women may be attenuated.”—
PMID: 18179326 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168
-
Responding to Disgust
Nov 23, 2019, 12:44 PM RESPONDING TO DISGUST by Luke Weinhagen Responding to disgust – First we ignore it Until we can’t Then we isolate it from us Until we can’t Then we isolate ourselves from it Until we can’t Then we try to correct it Until we can’t Then we try to accept it Until we can’t Then we can’t, so we don’t (Exhaustive pathological forbearance is to our masculine as pathological altruism is to our feminine – vulnerabilities who’s healthy forms serve our in-group well but expose us to exploitation by parasites in their unhealthy expression)
-
Responding to Disgust
Nov 23, 2019, 12:44 PM RESPONDING TO DISGUST by Luke Weinhagen Responding to disgust – First we ignore it Until we can’t Then we isolate it from us Until we can’t Then we isolate ourselves from it Until we can’t Then we try to correct it Until we can’t Then we try to accept it Until we can’t Then we can’t, so we don’t (Exhaustive pathological forbearance is to our masculine as pathological altruism is to our feminine – vulnerabilities who’s healthy forms serve our in-group well but expose us to exploitation by parasites in their unhealthy expression)
-
Love is very simple to explain…
Nov 23, 2019, 8:34 PM by Joseph E. Postma Love is very simple to explain… For a woman, you get the feeling of love where there is the possibility of a nest. For a man, you get the feeling of love where there is the possibility of fertility. Love is THAT simple. It’s a nice feeling…but it’s very mechanical in fact, and very simple. It’s more or less rational when you have a male and female of roughly equal marketability and roughly equally-limited supply, i.e., in a healthy community. Then you get good families and roughly good marriages. A female nests, a male inseminates. Rich men give the proposition of unlimited nesting, hence they are given unlimited supply. Young attractive (healthy) women give the proposition of unlimited inseminating, hence they are given unlimited offer. In these bounds are marketability and also disposability. At the boundaries, you get insanity of course and nothing rational at all. Unlimited supply on one hand, and zero on the other. It’s simply about what leads to, what has the potential to lead to, successful reproduction…which is what genes want. A woman has every right to value the potential to nest from her partner (agency, wealth, resources), as a man has every right to value the potential of fertility (young, healthy, attractive).
-
Love is very simple to explain…
Nov 23, 2019, 8:34 PM by Joseph E. Postma Love is very simple to explain… For a woman, you get the feeling of love where there is the possibility of a nest. For a man, you get the feeling of love where there is the possibility of fertility. Love is THAT simple. It’s a nice feeling…but it’s very mechanical in fact, and very simple. It’s more or less rational when you have a male and female of roughly equal marketability and roughly equally-limited supply, i.e., in a healthy community. Then you get good families and roughly good marriages. A female nests, a male inseminates. Rich men give the proposition of unlimited nesting, hence they are given unlimited supply. Young attractive (healthy) women give the proposition of unlimited inseminating, hence they are given unlimited offer. In these bounds are marketability and also disposability. At the boundaries, you get insanity of course and nothing rational at all. Unlimited supply on one hand, and zero on the other. It’s simply about what leads to, what has the potential to lead to, successful reproduction…which is what genes want. A woman has every right to value the potential to nest from her partner (agency, wealth, resources), as a man has every right to value the potential of fertility (young, healthy, attractive).
-
Via Aristotle’s Metaphysical Model
Nov 30, 2019, 3:26 PM by Andrew M Gilmour I’m not sure this will be of any use to you but I expanded Aristotle’s metaphysical model to help myself understand them. In keeping with truth equals that which exists, and each layer being predicated on the previous one; I came up with this model: Empirical and Analytical: 1. Ontic (4 categories of existence) 2. Epistemic (perceiving, awareness of) 3. Semiotic(?) (methodology, language is the first method, but includes everything in standard epistemology not included in the epistemic category) 4. Semantic 5. Ethic (CD: “Supply”, Masculine ) Leftists uses the mirror opposite model. Social and verbal (social constructivism): 1. Ethic (X is good, I like X) 2. Semantic (all definitions are defined how I value them) 3. Semiotic (all methods are arbitrary) 4. Epistemic (perception and awareness come after: feelings, definitions, and methods) They are not aware of anything that hasn’t passed through the first 3 levels. 5. Ontic (only after this completely backward process can a thing be said to exist) (CD: “Demand”, Feminine ) This seems to be the operational structure behind these two modes of being. Unfailingly when I read a leftist argument, I find the methodology procedes from the ethic or (false) definition. They’ve always used this model, only now it has a name.
-
Via Aristotle’s Metaphysical Model
Nov 30, 2019, 3:26 PM by Andrew M Gilmour I’m not sure this will be of any use to you but I expanded Aristotle’s metaphysical model to help myself understand them. In keeping with truth equals that which exists, and each layer being predicated on the previous one; I came up with this model: Empirical and Analytical: 1. Ontic (4 categories of existence) 2. Epistemic (perceiving, awareness of) 3. Semiotic(?) (methodology, language is the first method, but includes everything in standard epistemology not included in the epistemic category) 4. Semantic 5. Ethic (CD: “Supply”, Masculine ) Leftists uses the mirror opposite model. Social and verbal (social constructivism): 1. Ethic (X is good, I like X) 2. Semantic (all definitions are defined how I value them) 3. Semiotic (all methods are arbitrary) 4. Epistemic (perception and awareness come after: feelings, definitions, and methods) They are not aware of anything that hasn’t passed through the first 3 levels. 5. Ontic (only after this completely backward process can a thing be said to exist) (CD: “Demand”, Feminine ) This seems to be the operational structure behind these two modes of being. Unfailingly when I read a leftist argument, I find the methodology procedes from the ethic or (false) definition. They’ve always used this model, only now it has a name.
-
Groves were groves.
Dec 5, 2019, 11:17 AM —“Caesar writes that he had a problem with the Druids. They had the respect of the general populace and did not appear to be easily swung by the normal appeals to a leader’s desire for wealth or to consolidate power. This made them difficult to control. Caesar writes that in the end the only way to control them was to order that the Druids ‘groves’ be cut down. The normal understanding of this translation from Latin into ‘groves’ is a collection of trees but this may not be right. Perhaps those ‘groves’ were in fact stone circles. In order to remove the Druids as an alternative power base that was frustrating Caesar’s attempts to control the British Isles he had to remove their totems of power and rob the Druids of their equipment or arenas to rob them of their respected position in society.”— Groves were groves. The circles were evolved from home (hearth) burials. Stone circles (i think) from extending home (hearth) burials. —“megalithic constructions began as early as 5000 BCE in northwestern France[3], and that the custom and techniques spread via sea routes throughout Europe and the Mediterranean region from there.[4][5] The Carnac Stones in France are estimated to have been built around 4500 BCE[6] and many of the formations include megalithic stone circles. The earliest stone circles in England were erected 2500-3000 BCE[7] during the Middle Neolithic (c. 3700–2500 BCE). Around that time stone circles began to appear in coastal and lowland areas towards the north of the United Kingdom. The Langdale axe industry in the Lake District appears to have been an important early centre for circle building, perhaps because of its economic power.[citation needed] Many had closely set stones, perhaps similar to the earth banks of henges, others were made from unfounded boulders rather than standing stones. Recent research shows that two oldest stone circles in Britain (Stenness and Callanish) were constructed to align with solar and lunar positions.[8][9] Some sites do not contain evidence of human dwelling.[citation needed] This suggests that stone circles were constructed for ceremonies. The variety of the stones excludes the possibility that they had astronomical observation purposes of any precision.”—
-
Groves were groves.
Dec 5, 2019, 11:17 AM —“Caesar writes that he had a problem with the Druids. They had the respect of the general populace and did not appear to be easily swung by the normal appeals to a leader’s desire for wealth or to consolidate power. This made them difficult to control. Caesar writes that in the end the only way to control them was to order that the Druids ‘groves’ be cut down. The normal understanding of this translation from Latin into ‘groves’ is a collection of trees but this may not be right. Perhaps those ‘groves’ were in fact stone circles. In order to remove the Druids as an alternative power base that was frustrating Caesar’s attempts to control the British Isles he had to remove their totems of power and rob the Druids of their equipment or arenas to rob them of their respected position in society.”— Groves were groves. The circles were evolved from home (hearth) burials. Stone circles (i think) from extending home (hearth) burials. —“megalithic constructions began as early as 5000 BCE in northwestern France[3], and that the custom and techniques spread via sea routes throughout Europe and the Mediterranean region from there.[4][5] The Carnac Stones in France are estimated to have been built around 4500 BCE[6] and many of the formations include megalithic stone circles. The earliest stone circles in England were erected 2500-3000 BCE[7] during the Middle Neolithic (c. 3700–2500 BCE). Around that time stone circles began to appear in coastal and lowland areas towards the north of the United Kingdom. The Langdale axe industry in the Lake District appears to have been an important early centre for circle building, perhaps because of its economic power.[citation needed] Many had closely set stones, perhaps similar to the earth banks of henges, others were made from unfounded boulders rather than standing stones. Recent research shows that two oldest stone circles in Britain (Stenness and Callanish) were constructed to align with solar and lunar positions.[8][9] Some sites do not contain evidence of human dwelling.[citation needed] This suggests that stone circles were constructed for ceremonies. The variety of the stones excludes the possibility that they had astronomical observation purposes of any precision.”—