Form: Short Note

  • MARRIAGE STRUCTURES AMONG NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES (Note: basically what we get ou

    MARRIAGE STRUCTURES AMONG NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES

    (Note: basically what we get out of history is that women are in greater control when we combine both property rights and high male morality due to warfare. You’d think if the feminists figure this out they’ll renew the draft and vote to send us off to war in large numbers. lol )

    “Exclusive monogamy was the rule among the Iroquois and a few of their neighbors. This is to be expected in cultures in which matrilineal descent and matrilocal residence were coupled with female ownership and control of agricultural land and houses, not to mention the unusual authority of women in political affairs. Here the men literally moved in with their wives, who could divorce them merely by tossing their personal effects out of the door of the longhouse….”

    “The only other area where female dominance approached this level was that of the western Pueblos in the Southwest. Here the picture was similar, and exclusive monogamy prevailed. The other instances of exclusive monogamy were scattered and occurred in both bilateral and patrilineal societies. They do not lend themselves to any ready explanation.”

    “Sororal polygyny — that is, the marriage of a man to two wives who were sisters — probably occurred wherever polygyny was to be found. A number of Plains tribes had no other form. A man in this society was especially anxious to acquire an eldest sister as a first mate, with an eye on acquiring her younger sister if and when he could afford them…. [I]t is easy to see that polygyny had more utility in societies where male mortality in hunting and warfare was high. The Plains was one of these areas. Among the Eskimos, where a man had more difficulty in supporting multiple wives, the extremely high male mortality was offset by female infanticide. This partially explains the more modest amount of polygyny present in the Arctic.”

    (Note: Equilibria in everything)

    -HBD CHICK


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-05 17:03:00 UTC

  • CONSEQUENCES OF COMPETITION ON PRICE, CREDIT, AND SIGNAL If we compete on price,

    CONSEQUENCES OF COMPETITION ON PRICE, CREDIT, AND SIGNAL

    If we compete on price, then the person with the greatest access to credit will use that credit to drive competitors out of the market and then recapture the losses with gains in market share.

    The only solution to financial competition is aesthetic competition (signaling) which inverts the value of price.

    Most goods today are sold on aesthetics or signals not price, because the marginal difference in the utility of goods is near zero.

    This presents high cultures with a material economic problem because it is all well and good to move people out of the farm, then out of physical labor, and into their own proprietary spaces. But after that, you are stuck with all competition for consumers and their spending limited to little more than signaling.

    And the luxury and signaling goods that people seek once material signaling is exhausted, are free time, and rents.

    That’s the death spiral of the consumer society.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-04 09:22:00 UTC

  • TAXONOMIC SCHEME I was designing game engines back in the early 80’s using the s

    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/01/how-netflix-reverse-engineered-hollywood/282679/NETFLIX’S TAXONOMIC SCHEME

    I was designing game engines back in the early 80’s using the same technology as were others. Obvious games like NetHack (80’s), Diablo (90’s), Borderlands (00’s) and so called ‘loot games’ use similar techniques.

    The insight that this provides is ‘serendipity’ : which is why loot games and netflix and an antique mall are interesting: the chance of finding something different.

    This goes against the apple-era inspired argument for simplicity. Simplicity is good when you want to lower access costs. But when you want to reward the user for exploring, then favoring complexity and serendipity are smarter than simplicity.

    Like the opposite sex, If it is easily understood, it’s boring.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-03 18:20:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://t.co/Yb1X7XNAip


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-03 16:49:00 UTC

  • Am I just arguing for a higher and stricter standard of truth? I think so. Opera

    Am I just arguing for a higher and stricter standard of truth? I think so.

    Operationalism in cooperation

    Operationalism in science (causality)

    Operationalism in mathematics (relations)

    Operationalism in numbers (identities)

    Operationalism in logic (words)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-03 16:06:00 UTC

  • ON ARISTOCRACY Strange day today. But I have put silver bullet in rhetoric that

    ON ARISTOCRACY

    Strange day today. But I have put silver bullet in rhetoric that will at least keep the evil demon of babylonian, jewish and christian magian obscurantism in the tomb for a short while.

    Although I expect that this is a problem of containing the living dead’s desire for constant resurrection.

    ARISTOCRACY IS A PHILOSOPHY, NOT A SOCIAL CLASS


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-03 12:25:00 UTC

  • One of those interesting problems with ideation is that in intellectual discours

    One of those interesting problems with ideation is that in intellectual discourse we use the names of thinkers, their books (usually one idea), their quotes, and the inherited terminology from their works and the discussions of their works. Most of which, in philosophy, are reduced to ‘isms’.

    The problem of innovative argument then, can be solved as did all those philosophers who invent terms. Or it can be solved by altering the properties of those terms. Or it can be solved by rearranging the relationships of those terms. But in general, we are asked by convention to use extant terms.

    This does assist in comprehension, and accessibility and the effort to test any new theory. However, it also runs up against paradigmatic investment.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-03 11:06:00 UTC

  • THE ART OF DEBATE One of the things I gave up on a long time ago was focusing on

    THE ART OF DEBATE

    One of the things I gave up on a long time ago was focusing on people’s stupid errors unless they start to rely on ad hominems.

    Disputes can almost always be reduced to a central argument, which is either one of taste, utility or truth.

    If people use ad hominems I try to call them out and then return to the central problem of the argument.

    And I don’t really even like focusing on their errors. I just try to restate their words in the context of the central argument.

    One tactic that I do use, is to taunt people in order to obtain their participation. I probably shouldn’t do that, but when the opposition is so ready to rely on every rhetorical fallacy in the book, it just seems …. fair…. and warranted. 🙂

    But the best advice is to stay in the context of the central argument.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-03 10:04:00 UTC

  • NO-HANGOVER RECIPE 1) Eat Meat and Carbs before hand. 2) Drink twice the water y

    NO-HANGOVER RECIPE

    1) Eat Meat and Carbs before hand.

    2) Drink twice the water you do the volume of alcoholic drink.

    3) If it bothers you at all, then get it out of your stomach, even if you have to ‘help’ it. It’s just less work for your body.

    4) Drink 1-2 liters of water before you go to sleep.

    5) Dirty Little Secret: Order separate components, and use a charcoal water filter for the alcohol!

    WHY? Because I live the life of a 25 year old, but I am NOT a 25 year old. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-01 06:18:00 UTC

  • Vladimir. They are a tribal and feudal people. Kill every relative out to three

    Vladimir.

    They are a tribal and feudal people.

    Kill every relative out to three generations.

    Use the family to control the family.

    Surprise if you guess where I got this idea from….


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-31 15:32:00 UTC