We often Make the mistake of assuming that all but a very small percentage practice intellectual honesty (or dishonesty) – or even are capable of it. Intellectual honesty requires extraordinary agency that is available only to a tiny fraction of the population. The majority are capable of and practice emotional honesty and dishonesty. And that is the best that they can manage. Cognitive solipsism is impossible for their majority of the heavily female biased to escape, just as cognitive autism is nearly impossible for our majority of the male biased to escape. The difference being that solipsism vs autism serve experiential and interpersonal vs empirical and political ends. We both use language, but because one is speaking emotively and experientially and the other empirically and inter-temporally, there is no communication occurring and no chance of reasoning occurring. Hence why it is almost always fruitless to debate with one another unless we possess the same agency. In the example, the woman who’s arguing is demonstrating 1) hyperbolic straw manning, 2) disapproval, shaming, gossiping rallying rather than consequentialism, 3) deep solipsism lacking reflection, 4) and R-selection bias so deeply pre-cognitive that judgement not possible because commensurability is not possible . … I won’t even continue. We must Love such people, and take their emotions at face value. But if we cannot debate intellectually honestly and empirically then we cannot debate at all. Emotions are merely expressions of preference, they are undecidable (and irrelevant).
Form: Mini Essay
-
The Incommensurability of Emotional vs Intellectual Honesty
We often Make the mistake of assuming that all but a very small percentage practice intellectual honesty (or dishonesty) – or even are capable of it. Intellectual honesty requires extraordinary agency that is available only to a tiny fraction of the population. The majority are capable of and practice emotional honesty and dishonesty. And that is the best that they can manage. Cognitive solipsism is impossible for their majority of the heavily female biased to escape, just as cognitive autism is nearly impossible for our majority of the male biased to escape. The difference being that solipsism vs autism serve experiential and interpersonal vs empirical and political ends. We both use language, but because one is speaking emotively and experientially and the other empirically and inter-temporally, there is no communication occurring and no chance of reasoning occurring. Hence why it is almost always fruitless to debate with one another unless we possess the same agency. In the example, the woman who’s arguing is demonstrating 1) hyperbolic straw manning, 2) disapproval, shaming, gossiping rallying rather than consequentialism, 3) deep solipsism lacking reflection, 4) and R-selection bias so deeply pre-cognitive that judgement not possible because commensurability is not possible . … I won’t even continue. We must Love such people, and take their emotions at face value. But if we cannot debate intellectually honestly and empirically then we cannot debate at all. Emotions are merely expressions of preference, they are undecidable (and irrelevant).
-
LAYING DOWN THE LAW ON SOCIAL PSEUDOSCIENCE @KennethBuff @sapinker People vote P
LAYING DOWN THE LAW ON SOCIAL PSEUDOSCIENCE
@KennethBuff @sapinker
People vote POWER given the CONDITIONS of competition. That’s why Democracy works for selecting priorities in a homogenous polity but not choosing differences in a heterogeneous polity, and why there is so much friction between American ‘tribes’.
Any time we state an incomplete premise we feed discord by supplying bias confirmation by doing the cherry picking for them.
He (Steve) stated an incomplete premise in order to feed the confirmation bias of a majority faction – not the Truth. (Hence the legal requirement for “The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth”)
What the NYT article referred to conveys is that virtue signaling is a form of conspicuous consumption that one forces others to pay the indirect cost of. (Theft by Fraud)
Or stated directly: we are burning the most valuable form of capital in the world (homogeneity and high trust) for virtue signals, in order to obtain political power.
If you cannot make a statement in social science using economic terms, then either you don’t know what you’re talking about, or you are engaged in selection bias, or worse, deception.
Hence the rise of “Economic Imperialism” in the Academy as a counter to social pseudoscience.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 10:37:00 UTC
-
WE ARE MEN. WE FORM PACKS. WE HUNT. WHEN WE DISCOVER A NEW TECHNIQUE WE CONVERGE
WE ARE MEN. WE FORM PACKS. WE HUNT. WHEN WE DISCOVER A NEW TECHNIQUE WE CONVERGE ON IT.
Criticizing a sacred cow? Hit a value-nerve? eh? We are all working to define a path to a future for our people and that process is exhaustive and fractally fragmented. Once we exhaust the search we will coalesce on what survives as a possibility. Men are not women. We specialize into small packs. The packs that mailnvest will disappear. Those that do not will converge. As always.
Abandon equality and homogeneity – they are women’s work. Understand that we are men. We specialize. We form packs. We hunt. We innovate. We imitate, and we improve – and little by little we become the gods we desire to be.
Man is glorious.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 21:08:00 UTC
-
The Two Fold Morality of Achilles
by Adam Voight The morality of Achilles is two fold: 1) Freedom – Rulers do not own the ruled; rulers owe their power to attracting good subjects who will fight for them and serve them. This is revealed in Achilles’ dealings with Agamemnon and Menelaos. 2) Universal Honor code – Just because you are fighting a war against some nation, does not mean that you hate those people or deal with them dishonorably. All just war is just insofar as it is fought for honor and fought with honor. The fact that Achilles recognizes the honor of the Trojans when he returns Hector’s body and when he dies accepting the Trojan’s word that it was the Greeks who broke the cease-fire.
-
The Two Fold Morality of Achilles
by Adam Voight The morality of Achilles is two fold: 1) Freedom – Rulers do not own the ruled; rulers owe their power to attracting good subjects who will fight for them and serve them. This is revealed in Achilles’ dealings with Agamemnon and Menelaos. 2) Universal Honor code – Just because you are fighting a war against some nation, does not mean that you hate those people or deal with them dishonorably. All just war is just insofar as it is fought for honor and fought with honor. The fact that Achilles recognizes the honor of the Trojans when he returns Hector’s body and when he dies accepting the Trojan’s word that it was the Greeks who broke the cease-fire.
-
—“why Are We Not Seeing a Shock from Gender Asymmetry in India and China?”—
1- Economic opportunity is masking conflict – as it always does. The return of economic limitations restores group conflicts. 2 – Substantial underclass populations still preserving family. 3 – So there is sex pressure but still hope. 4 – And there is marriage retention and still hope. 5 – Unlike the west, they are not wealthy enough to destroy the economic security of the family. 6 – Japan is the … oddity. (Low testosterone in asian men is not a good thing) In any society where the woman are capable of both single motherhood and middle class (technological) workplace substitution of men, we should see a retreat to serial marriage and excess males. Males are cost to a woman while raising children if they are working. This same effect won’t occur in populations with IQ’s below 95 (massive underclasses). And the upper classes will always find greater competitive and status value in dual incomes or high male income with supported females. Without eugenics either environmental, agrarian, or political, it is very hard to maintain human advancement.
-
Trump Is Doing What He Promised. He’s an Entrepreneur. Govt Is Just an Obstacle to His Promises to The People.
Trump isn’t a neocon (expansionist) he’s trying to withdraw into safety, and focus the economy on expansion rather than postwar pacification. That means settling all open disputes (which now include Russia – but the press hasn’t caught onto Russian reduction of military spending and redirection to diversifying the economy), ending Korean conflict and bringing those troops home, and in the middle east, preventing a near monopoly of oil production over there, consequential development of a bourse, and new petro-currency, and the military buildup such an event would permit, and the creation of a wealthy military empire – and instead, he’s doing the obvious that’s been recommended by the generals which is to eliminate any islamic state’s expansionism, preserve egypt, the kingdoms, in the south, israel in the center, and the existing high-violence states in the north. (syria, iraq, iran, pakistan). The assumption at present is that Turkey and Iran will form power centers, and that Turkey will return to the islamic civilization and leave the european civilization and thereby cease being a ‘torn country’. The Palestinians have institutionalized rebellion so everyone is waiting them out. And they’re done for the simple reason that israel will eventually fail demographically about the same time that Palestinians are integrated in the region. So the only remaining problem in this plan is replacing the iranian regime and eliminating it’s nuclear (if not military capacity) and as far as I know, given rates of protest, and the public’s intolerance for more economic suffering due to military expansionism, that’s going to happen. TRUMP IS DOING WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO IN HIS CAMPAIGN. The only thing he isn’t is whatever he can’t because it’s blocked by congress.
-
Trump Is Doing What He Promised. He’s an Entrepreneur. Govt Is Just an Obstacle to His Promises to The People.
Trump isn’t a neocon (expansionist) he’s trying to withdraw into safety, and focus the economy on expansion rather than postwar pacification. That means settling all open disputes (which now include Russia – but the press hasn’t caught onto Russian reduction of military spending and redirection to diversifying the economy), ending Korean conflict and bringing those troops home, and in the middle east, preventing a near monopoly of oil production over there, consequential development of a bourse, and new petro-currency, and the military buildup such an event would permit, and the creation of a wealthy military empire – and instead, he’s doing the obvious that’s been recommended by the generals which is to eliminate any islamic state’s expansionism, preserve egypt, the kingdoms, in the south, israel in the center, and the existing high-violence states in the north. (syria, iraq, iran, pakistan). The assumption at present is that Turkey and Iran will form power centers, and that Turkey will return to the islamic civilization and leave the european civilization and thereby cease being a ‘torn country’. The Palestinians have institutionalized rebellion so everyone is waiting them out. And they’re done for the simple reason that israel will eventually fail demographically about the same time that Palestinians are integrated in the region. So the only remaining problem in this plan is replacing the iranian regime and eliminating it’s nuclear (if not military capacity) and as far as I know, given rates of protest, and the public’s intolerance for more economic suffering due to military expansionism, that’s going to happen. TRUMP IS DOING WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO IN HIS CAMPAIGN. The only thing he isn’t is whatever he can’t because it’s blocked by congress.
-
BTC – Initial Generation Issues
Initial generations of any technology follow a nearly identical pattern of over-enthusiasm and over-investment by hobbyists reaching the same limitations and failing to circumvent them. The subsequent generations of technology put greater investment in the hard work of solving the limitations, and paying the high cost of reorganizing the entire model if necessary. This is why first movers do not generally make the money that later movers do. I’ve said for years now that (a) the idea itself is brilliant, but (a) proof of work requiring waste heat is a pretty bad design, (b) btc are shares in a vulnerable network and as such a token money substitute persistently retaining that vulnerability, (c) I predicted that centralized, monolithic versions of the idea using mainstream technology and maintained by the treasury and banking organizations will succeed where distributed systems will not, for the simple reason that the user interface for, security of, response time for, archival ability for, and insurability by an insurer of last resort capable of restitution of losses, will have all the utility advantages without any of the weaknesses. (d) hence the distributed nature is not as valuable as the fractional share and record of title, and all we are doing is free research and development for the state, and the private banking network, check cashing networks, etc. I am extremely thrilled by the ICO model and self issuance of fractional shares because it totally screws big finance. I’m extremely thrilled by the ability to create a portfolio of digital monies that can only be used for certain exchanges. However, I have zero faith whatsoever in the durabiity of any form of encryption, or any distributed software, until there is a firmware revolution – which is a long way off.