(My teenage son is damned good-looking and he hates it when we say it… so of course…. we say it. Often. His mother loves teasing him. )
Source date (UTC): 2021-03-10 20:08:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1369741943945760770
Form: Short Note
-
We just went thru a year of riots. And we just had to have an unarmed national g
We just went thru a year of riots. And we just had to have an unarmed national guard in DC, and a purge of the guard of our ‘allies’. So what do you think? They can’t win a war and haven’t since ww2. Why?
Source date (UTC): 2021-03-10 18:53:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1369723221675753473
Reply addressees: @JarvisWitts
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1369719542998441984
-
(BTW: I’m not good enough to worry about tonal differences in guitar. I bought t
(BTW: I’m not good enough to worry about tonal differences in guitar. I bought the usual pair of high-end pickups (clean and humbucker). The ‘cheap’ rescue-neck was fine. And I learned on acoustic and classical so I’m not sophisticated. I don’t play any longer: No callouses.) 😉
Source date (UTC): 2021-03-10 17:40:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1369704772283011073
Reply addressees: @Scott24470633
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1369674807617466371
-
MB vs BIG5 … Again.
MB expanded to a similar number of questions as B5 would remain useful – for the workplace. B5 including empathy-systematizing would explain the difference in facets (subtraits) which vary by sex. So no it’s not bullshit. it teaches normal folk to think about motivations. I worked on this question, and the delta between Big Five and MB is trivial. And it’s due to the low number of MB questions(stability of results) & B5 includes neuroticism vs MB includes empathy-systematizing. MB is about all the normal folks can use in a business setting. So No.
-
MB vs BIG5 … Again.
MB expanded to a similar number of questions as B5 would remain useful – for the workplace. B5 including empathy-systematizing would explain the difference in facets (subtraits) which vary by sex. So no it’s not bullshit. it teaches normal folk to think about motivations. I worked on this question, and the delta between Big Five and MB is trivial. And it’s due to the low number of MB questions(stability of results) & B5 includes neuroticism vs MB includes empathy-systematizing. MB is about all the normal folks can use in a business setting. So No.
-
Max Tegmark Saves Me Work… 😉
I found a video by Max Tegmark (MIT) that explains the math behind the Grammars. Not that I’ll get anywhere by showing formulae. But his slides explain what I’m trying to get across: that the pattern (grammar) is the same at every scale of the universe – including language. I use geometry as the ‘system of commensurability’ or the ‘system of measurement’ in P-Logic, Psychology, Behavior, Sociology, Group Strategy, and Law https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnEtNC8eFso
-
The Chinese are not wrong to dispute our use of markets, because while we use(us
The Chinese are not wrong to dispute our use of markets, because while we use(used) markets to train the population in the absence of authority, they use authority in the absence of markets. So Europeans(rule of law) and Chinese(rule of state) force integration by opposite means.
The problem is this: The chinese method minimizes risk at the expense of innovation and adaptation. The european method maximizes innovation and adaptation at the expense of risk.
We should be far less tolerant.
Source date (UTC): 2021-03-10 16:59:03 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105866562358425767
-
The problem is this: The chinese method minimizes risk at the expense of innovat
The problem is this: The chinese method minimizes risk at the expense of innovation and adaptation. The european method maximizes innovation and adaptation at the expense of risk.
We should be far less tolerant.
Source date (UTC): 2021-03-10 16:57:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1369694021027852289
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1369686892019658753
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
The Chinese are not wrong to dispute our use of markets, because while we use(used) markets to train the population in the absence of authority, they use authority in the absence of markets. So Europeans(rule of law) and Chinese(rule of state) force integration by opposite means.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1369686892019658753
-
The Cause of Diversity Frictions
Woke is a desperate attempt to preserve the pseudoscientific anti-Darwinian movement. IQ, Sex, Class, Race differences are all true. BUT, due to delta in underclass size and resulting culture – and a problem of CLASS, kin-preference, culture, immigration, integration – not race. Sex value of Race(neoteny) will exist. Kin bias will exist. Power-seeking by kin bias will exist. But differences in political demand by kin preference are due to differences in size of classes. ie; only groups w/ same class sizes, same culture, reduce kin friction. This isn’t an ‘opinion’ or a ‘preference’ or an ‘ambition’. it’s a law of evolutionary biology, a law of nature, and it will never, ever change. If we discuss race differences we are discussing conflicts due to kin preference under different genetic distributions.
-
The Cause of Diversity Frictions
Woke is a desperate attempt to preserve the pseudoscientific anti-Darwinian movement. IQ, Sex, Class, Race differences are all true. BUT, due to delta in underclass size and resulting culture – and a problem of CLASS, kin-preference, culture, immigration, integration – not race. Sex value of Race(neoteny) will exist. Kin bias will exist. Power-seeking by kin bias will exist. But differences in political demand by kin preference are due to differences in size of classes. ie; only groups w/ same class sizes, same culture, reduce kin friction. This isn’t an ‘opinion’ or a ‘preference’ or an ‘ambition’. it’s a law of evolutionary biology, a law of nature, and it will never, ever change. If we discuss race differences we are discussing conflicts due to kin preference under different genetic distributions.