Source: Facebook

  • SCHOOL FOR WOMEN

    https://elegantwoman.org/etiquette-charm-finishing-schoolFINISHING SCHOOL FOR WOMEN

    https://elegantwoman.org/etiquette-charm-finishing-school


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 10:57:00 UTC

  • FINISHING SCHOOL FOR MEN

    FINISHING SCHOOL FOR MEN

    https://www.britishbutlerinstitute.com/finishing-school-home/finishing-school-programmes/finishing-school-for-men/


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 10:56:00 UTC

  • “CURT: HOW CAN I LEARN WHY PSYCHOLOGY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE?”— A Friend Hmmm….

    —“CURT: HOW CAN I LEARN WHY PSYCHOLOGY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE?”— A Friend

    Hmmm…. Well, psychology(Investigation/measurement) vs freudian psychology(projection/fictionalism).

    Start at the beginning with Karl Popper on Freud.

    The read about the “Operationist” movement in psychology.

    Then read about “The replication crisis”.

    Then take note of how hard it is to find any papers that do not try to deny psychology is a pseudoscience despite the near zero replicability of findings. “The Ladies Doth Protest Too Much” is rather obvious. Data is data. Replication is replication. Psychology and sociology don’t replicate. Ergo, it’s not science.

    Freudian categories are outright fabrications – he just made it up. Why? We all carry our cultural baggage with us. Judaism enforces conformity with the feminine bias (entrapment/herd) and europeanism encourages exceptionalism (innovation/pack). Freud stated the jewish and feminine psychology in pseudoscientific terms, (he basically invented the concept of ‘rape culture’ that is a psychosis of the feminine mind).

    Nietzsche stated the european and masculine psychology casting the feminine as a catastrophe (correctly). Just as Marx was a Jewish reaction to Darwin, Freud was a Jewish reaction to Nietzsche, Frankfurt was a Jewish Reaction to Spencer et al.

    Jung came along and tried to correct Freud by using literary archetypes, which were free of Jewish/Feminine psychosis, and provided a normative model compared to Nietzsche’s reformation and restoration of western civilization.

    The war period resulted in pseudoscience through about the Regan Revolution of the 1980s, and the technological revolution and fall of the soviet and chinese empires in the 1990’s.

    As usual, science (empiricism, and warranty of due diligence) saved us from nonsense.

    Psychotherapy is a pseudoscience (talk therapy), although counseling (mentoring) is not.

    Cognitive behavior therapy (training) is not a pseudoscience, it is just stoicism applied correctively rather than as an ordinary universal training of the mind.

    Psychiatry (medication and surgery) is not a pseudoscience and it was the first strike against the pseudosciences of the Freudians.

    Psychology isn’t always a pseudoscience – but is mostly – because only economics provides us with good data on human behavior (demonstrated preference and bias). The fact that we cannot actually run experiments in economics is precisely the reason we have a harder time projecting, and that economic pseudoscience is largely achieved by innumeracy: cherry picking the income statement over the balance sheet in order to hide destruction of accumulated capital.

    Cog Sci is not really a term used any longer, but represented an attempt by a GENERATION of scholars to LEAVE the pseudoscience of psychology behind. It was made possible largely by imaging and computer imaging technology which let us examine (relatively un-intrusively) the workings of the brain. And we have made huge progress in the past twenty years in exposing psychology (projectionism) as a pseudoscience. And replaced it with subfields that study language, cognitive bias, emotions, neurology, brain structure, etc without the ‘projection’ (fantasizing) that constituted psychology.

    Propertarianism/Acquisitionism provide a superior means of describing behavior (incentives, biases, and actions). This is why it’s so important a vocabulary and grammar for metaphysics, psychology, social science, politics, and law.

    Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 10:34:00 UTC

  • PROPERTY MAY BE INTANGIBLE BUT THE COSTS OF IT ARE NOT —“Intangible property e

    PROPERTY MAY BE INTANGIBLE BUT THE COSTS OF IT ARE NOT

    —“Intangible property exists inside the realms of both personal and group property. Intangible property exists in ideas or information which men are willing to defend, such as a man’s reputation, or the reputation of a man’s family or ancestors. These things may not be tangible in such that you can point at or identify them, but they exist as property because men are willing to defend them with violence, often times even more so than the more tangible types of property.”— Allen Freeman via Oliver Westcott


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 09:49:00 UTC

  • ART? MATTERS OF TASTE? OR MATTERS OF EDUCATION AND SKILL? Taste is a consequence

    ART? MATTERS OF TASTE? OR MATTERS OF EDUCATION AND SKILL?

    Taste is a consequence of ability, bias, knowledge, and skill. Some people have bad taste. Some classes have bad taste. Some cultures have bad taste. It’s not a matter of opinion.

    So just as MORAL intuitions vary due to genetics, gender, class, culture, and education, TASTE intuitions vary due to the same. They are both intuitionistic responses. But all intuitions can be trained with the limits of one’s abilities.

    Color blindness, tone deafness, face-blindness, weak pattern recognition, and general inability to learn by observation do influence you.

    Familiarity with and associations between patterns and symbols and recognition of the difference between content/value/narrative, fashion/style, movement/period, and technique/materials will anchor you in your traditional frames.

    However, it is possible to learn to understand all of them and distinguish between them, and separate premium, good, weak, and bad examples.

    The principle weakness in developing taste is composition (sets) vs objects (items). One can collect similar items, or one can make a composition consisting of items. Most people capable of learning can be trained to produce compositions instead of selecting (impulsive) items.

    For example, we can appreciate Fletes Cruz, a Botero and a Wei, just as easily as a monet and degas, just as easily as a Rubens and Durer, and to recognize the vast difference between Rodin and Michelangelo and nearly every other sculptor that ever lived. Or the self made prisons that Giacometti’s and Picasso’s styles made for them.

    Once you look at works, and tie them to periods, movements, and the economic and political environments you can see the arts as just another technological reflection of the period, and enjoy all of it.

    I can be just as happy in colonial, edwardian, victorian, craftsman, and mid century modern, and I prefer the romantics but in my hope I would hang a Rothko, and modern.

    The problem is, ‘what is your favorite’ is the absolute WORST question you can ask someone, and it is the worst way to develop taste. Instead, compositions can be beautiful or not. Preferable or not. And preferable for intended purpose or not.

    Bad work is very easy to identify because of craftsmanship and design. But bad style and content requires understanding context.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 09:46:00 UTC

  • GENDER DIFFERENCES IN NONSENSE-SPEECH (humor) —“Girls talk about stupid girl s

    GENDER DIFFERENCES IN NONSENSE-SPEECH

    (humor)

    —“Girls talk about stupid girl stuff, and guys talk about stupid guy stuff. We all do it. The difference is guys know it’s stupid stuff.”— A Friend

    It’s just that girls maintain the peace by not ADMITTING its stupid stuff (Defecting), where men preserve loyalty by admitting it’s stupid stuff.

    Inverse relations, same purpose.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 09:08:00 UTC

  • “We have a strong relationship where I get “volun-told” what I like.”— Husband

    —“We have a strong relationship where I get “volun-told” what I like.”— Husband

    Does that sound like a c u c k?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 09:05:00 UTC

  • THE ECONOMICS OF CANNIBALISM? (humor) —“They still practice cannibalism there”

    THE ECONOMICS OF CANNIBALISM?

    (humor)

    —“They still practice cannibalism there”—Andy Ujku

    I always wonder ‘what are the choice cuts’ for cannibals? Because, humans have glutes and thighs and calves but we have evolved to trade muscle for heat dissipation and brain size – and that made us expensive life forms. People are plentiful herd animals, and great beasts of burden, as the ancient slave societies illustrated, but because humans grow and mature slowly and expressively, they provide poor caloric returns. Stuff that eats grass provides better investment for eating – and humans serve better as beasts of burden than food source. 😉

    (See? Economics in everything. lolz;)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 08:43:00 UTC

  • REAPING THE EXTREMIST FRUITS OF THE MIDDLE’S TOLERANCE by John Mark (cd: this is

    REAPING THE EXTREMIST FRUITS OF THE MIDDLE’S TOLERANCE

    by John Mark (cd: this is brilliant)

    What these “We can all come together” people don’t understand is that the most intolerant group (the group most willing to punish anyone who deviates from their agenda) wins.

    Thus the middle groups, continuing their attempt at the failed strategy of tolerance, allow the totally intolerant far left progressive activists to take more and more power, while the only group smart enough to counter them with total intolerance in return is the hard right.

    The “exhausted majority” is reaping the fruit of their own


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 08:33:00 UTC

  • “Did your views on allocation of public funds change at all when you had childre

    —“Did your views on allocation of public funds change at all when you had children from when you didn’t?”— Dan Springhorn

    No. It was just study of economics and history: data. And most importantly, when I understood the uniqueness of western civilization as commons. Now, there are no such thing as ‘public funds’ other than credit money. The rest is private funds that have been possible because of the political order of property rights. So, there is a difference between redistribution for consumption, and redistribution into commons, and the externalities whether consumptive or common. In general, parks, infrastructure, and insurance are good commons, but charity needs be private so that it produces the optimum externalities (charity) vs the worse possible externalities (welfare that breeds dysgenia).

    ( As a side note, I (me, myself) don’t figure into my thinking much at all. My test is reciprocity, capital production, competition, eugenics, and evolution-transcendence. )


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-20 08:27:00 UTC