(Humor.) Re: “Mansplaining and Womansplaining” Yeah. I’m a little done with womansplaining as well. Mansplaining is merely useless – it won’t accomplish anything even if it should. Womansplaining is useless and false – but often succeeds even though it shouldn’t. 😉 Let’s compare them: Womansplaining: “There is no bell curve. Everyone is equal. Everyone has equal potential. And everyone that’s unsuccessful is inhibited by others’ bias or malice.” In other words, “I want my dead weight offspring to have a chance at achieving devolutionary and undeserving equality with his or her genetic superiors.” Short term, female, empathetic, feels. Mansplaining:“There is always a bell curve – and a third of people are dead weight, and its genetic, and women decide who they mate with – so it’s their fault.” In other words, “I want my tribe to be free of dead weight offspring so we have a chance at achieving at defeating competing tribes who seek to defeat our genes.” Long term, male, analytic, reals. That’s the net of it. Understand the speaker’s bias, and you understand his brain structure and you understand his reproductive strategy – and that none of that is under his cognitive control and everything he (or she) says is just the persona-puppet following instructions of one’s genes. Really. That’s the entirety of the left (Female cognitive bias) right (male cognitive bias)
Source: Original Site Post
-
(Humor.) “Mansplaining and Womansplaining”
(Humor.) Re: “Mansplaining and Womansplaining” Yeah. I’m a little done with womansplaining as well. Mansplaining is merely useless – it won’t accomplish anything even if it should. Womansplaining is useless and false – but often succeeds even though it shouldn’t. 😉 Let’s compare them: Womansplaining: “There is no bell curve. Everyone is equal. Everyone has equal potential. And everyone that’s unsuccessful is inhibited by others’ bias or malice.” In other words, “I want my dead weight offspring to have a chance at achieving devolutionary and undeserving equality with his or her genetic superiors.” Short term, female, empathetic, feels. Mansplaining:“There is always a bell curve – and a third of people are dead weight, and its genetic, and women decide who they mate with – so it’s their fault.” In other words, “I want my tribe to be free of dead weight offspring so we have a chance at achieving at defeating competing tribes who seek to defeat our genes.” Long term, male, analytic, reals. That’s the net of it. Understand the speaker’s bias, and you understand his brain structure and you understand his reproductive strategy – and that none of that is under his cognitive control and everything he (or she) says is just the persona-puppet following instructions of one’s genes. Really. That’s the entirety of the left (Female cognitive bias) right (male cognitive bias)
-
Three means of human coercion or more gently, weapons of influence.
One more time. Three means of human coercion or more gently, weapons of influence. The Physical: Body and Movement Using Force or Violence The fear of harm or promise of defense. By the Dominant or Established Male The Material: Resources and Opportunity Using Bribe or Trade The fear of loss of gains, or promise of gains By the Brother, Ally, or Ascendant Male The Social: Cooperation and Insurance Using Undermining or Advocacy The fear of ostracization or promise of inclusion By the female and especially dominant female Personality: Big5/6 Personality Traits with 10/12 Personality facets. Where One Traits differs Dominance Expression. Where all Facets differ by Gender Bias. Where all personalities cluster by three types: Dominant or Established Male. Ascendant Male. Female. Gender: Where sex is genetically determined and either male or female. Where the brain evolves a dominant lateral, female, associative (wide association in the present) and longitudinal male a narrow, association over time and space). Where the resulting brain structure favors temporal interpersonal emotion in the female necessary for child rearing, and intertemporal political analytic in the male necessary for holding territory, resources, females, and children from capture by competing males. Where sexual preference is for the opposite sex, either male, female, but a small percentage of the population is subject to developmental defect in utero and can express almost any gender distribution. Conflict: Where developmental defect can cause failure to produce sufficient agency for self control. Where genders demonstrate differences in self control by antisocial, disruptive or hostile behavior. Where females demonstrate sexual, psychological(interpersonal), social(group), antisocial behavior, by continuous undermining and manipulation. Where males demonstrate sexual and physical antisocial behavior by continuous harm to self, others, and property.
-
Three means of human coercion or more gently, weapons of influence.
One more time. Three means of human coercion or more gently, weapons of influence. The Physical: Body and Movement Using Force or Violence The fear of harm or promise of defense. By the Dominant or Established Male The Material: Resources and Opportunity Using Bribe or Trade The fear of loss of gains, or promise of gains By the Brother, Ally, or Ascendant Male The Social: Cooperation and Insurance Using Undermining or Advocacy The fear of ostracization or promise of inclusion By the female and especially dominant female Personality: Big5/6 Personality Traits with 10/12 Personality facets. Where One Traits differs Dominance Expression. Where all Facets differ by Gender Bias. Where all personalities cluster by three types: Dominant or Established Male. Ascendant Male. Female. Gender: Where sex is genetically determined and either male or female. Where the brain evolves a dominant lateral, female, associative (wide association in the present) and longitudinal male a narrow, association over time and space). Where the resulting brain structure favors temporal interpersonal emotion in the female necessary for child rearing, and intertemporal political analytic in the male necessary for holding territory, resources, females, and children from capture by competing males. Where sexual preference is for the opposite sex, either male, female, but a small percentage of the population is subject to developmental defect in utero and can express almost any gender distribution. Conflict: Where developmental defect can cause failure to produce sufficient agency for self control. Where genders demonstrate differences in self control by antisocial, disruptive or hostile behavior. Where females demonstrate sexual, psychological(interpersonal), social(group), antisocial behavior, by continuous undermining and manipulation. Where males demonstrate sexual and physical antisocial behavior by continuous harm to self, others, and property.
-
Truth isn’t manipulation. It’s either information or it’s discipline.
—“Concerted, organized effort to shame western people into a pattern where were easily manipulated.” Like EXACTLY like what YOU do? You do realize that you perpetrate literally EVERY part of this against women. Of course you do, you’ve just found a way to capitalize on it.”— Crazy Woman
Truth isn’t manipulation. it’s prevention of manipulation. 😉 If we force truth then we can engage in trade. If you don’t want to trade and you want to preserve manipulation then why shouldn’t we conquer and enserf you? We certainly can. Easily. You are using GSRRM in your post (you’re probably mentally ill or mentally underdeveloped). Around 40% of women are mentally ill. We are just getting our arms around why that is. We aren’t sure yet. If you were an intellectually honest, mentally stable, and engaged in reciprocity (seeking exchanges), then you would simply say ‘Yes this is true, but what can we do about it?” You didn’t do that. Because you are a bad person.
-
Truth isn’t manipulation. It’s either information or it’s discipline.
—“Concerted, organized effort to shame western people into a pattern where were easily manipulated.” Like EXACTLY like what YOU do? You do realize that you perpetrate literally EVERY part of this against women. Of course you do, you’ve just found a way to capitalize on it.”— Crazy Woman
Truth isn’t manipulation. it’s prevention of manipulation. 😉 If we force truth then we can engage in trade. If you don’t want to trade and you want to preserve manipulation then why shouldn’t we conquer and enserf you? We certainly can. Easily. You are using GSRRM in your post (you’re probably mentally ill or mentally underdeveloped). Around 40% of women are mentally ill. We are just getting our arms around why that is. We aren’t sure yet. If you were an intellectually honest, mentally stable, and engaged in reciprocity (seeking exchanges), then you would simply say ‘Yes this is true, but what can we do about it?” You didn’t do that. Because you are a bad person.
-
“The Case Against Reality” No. The Case for Woo Woo Pseudoscience.
“The Case Against Reality” The case for woo woo pseudoscience. This is pseudoscientific nonsense. We see actionable reality at actionable scale, using some pretty amazing instrumentation. We ‘predict’ (imagine consequences from) our model of the world, that is not real. That’s simply a lack of discipline. I can and have, and others can and have, explained consciousness – and with recent work it’s not even complicated. I’d like to see the ‘math’ he’s talking about because I’m pretty sure he’s hand-waving. He’s using Truth as an undefined ‘woo woo’ term (hand waving). A fitness payoff (more correctly, return on cost of continuous production) An organism that sees the world as it is (processes unnecessary information) that models the world independent of it’s capacity for action will be out-competed by an organism that reduces the world model necessary for action to the minimum necessary for action, and just competes on what works regardless of any model of the world. Well, this is only true to the point at which organisms can voluntarily cooperate – because there are no competitors to return on cooperation. The camera obscura, and the camera, are a purely physical thing without consciousness. Yet we see what the camera records, without manipulating it. Sure, we can’t see all the same colors. Some of us see more than others. But that’s a difference in resolution of color not a difference in any ‘truth’ we see. “Space and time don’t exist independent of our perception.” Well that’s demonstrably false. Space and time are vocabulary we use to describe what we perceive through sensory information. “There are other consciousnesses out there”. OMG…. I would eat these morons for lunch. https://youtu.be/dd6CQCbk2ro
-
“The Case Against Reality” No. The Case for Woo Woo Pseudoscience.
“The Case Against Reality” The case for woo woo pseudoscience. This is pseudoscientific nonsense. We see actionable reality at actionable scale, using some pretty amazing instrumentation. We ‘predict’ (imagine consequences from) our model of the world, that is not real. That’s simply a lack of discipline. I can and have, and others can and have, explained consciousness – and with recent work it’s not even complicated. I’d like to see the ‘math’ he’s talking about because I’m pretty sure he’s hand-waving. He’s using Truth as an undefined ‘woo woo’ term (hand waving). A fitness payoff (more correctly, return on cost of continuous production) An organism that sees the world as it is (processes unnecessary information) that models the world independent of it’s capacity for action will be out-competed by an organism that reduces the world model necessary for action to the minimum necessary for action, and just competes on what works regardless of any model of the world. Well, this is only true to the point at which organisms can voluntarily cooperate – because there are no competitors to return on cooperation. The camera obscura, and the camera, are a purely physical thing without consciousness. Yet we see what the camera records, without manipulating it. Sure, we can’t see all the same colors. Some of us see more than others. But that’s a difference in resolution of color not a difference in any ‘truth’ we see. “Space and time don’t exist independent of our perception.” Well that’s demonstrably false. Space and time are vocabulary we use to describe what we perceive through sensory information. “There are other consciousnesses out there”. OMG…. I would eat these morons for lunch. https://youtu.be/dd6CQCbk2ro
-
“It would be cool to watch you debate theologians.”
—“It would also be cool to watch you debate theologians. Not pansy ones either but the few who are also high level scientists.”— A Friend
[I]t‘s a very simple argument: What is a theologian claiming: Good and wisdom, or True and demonstrable? What can they testify to? How can they demonstrate it? How can they warranty it? What is their incentive? What are the costs if they lie? Why is the world of science good for man, and the world of religion devolutionary for man? Why is science of man good and the actions of god evil? Why did christians jews and muslims create a dark age? Why are the churches full of our least competent people? Why did the churches fail to reform? Why did Europe abandon christianity? Why did the evangelical movement succeed and why are Americans leaving the church and dividing half secular and half evangelical? What should the church have done when theology was continuously defeated by science and proven false? Why did the church resist literacy of the people. Why did the church resist the printing of the bible in the people’s language? Why did the monastic orders arise if not in response tot he corruption of the church? Why did the church need the vikings to fight the crusades? Was christianity adopted or was it enforced in the past as islam is still enforced today? Did the christians destroy the ancient world, it’s monuments, it’s arts and letters, its academies, its accumulated knowledge, and instead of restoring roman order, aristocracy, literacy, and greek knowledge, drag Europe and the pagan peoples into dark ages? Why is the abrahamic method of deceit used by jews, christians and muslims used again by marxists, postmodernists, and feminist to repeat the same destruction of the old world to destroy the new – this time with false promise of economic and political reward instead of life after death and political reward? Why do theologians use the same arguments as the marxists, postmodernists, and feminists who destroy this world. I have never found a theological argument I cannot defeat. We know too much now. Hence (a) there currently are, and have been, many gods. (b) all gods exist as information, (c) this information exists in the minds of man, (d) this information influences individual and group behavior (e) this behavior is often good, but vulnerable to conquest – which was the purpose of the church. (f) but as a consequence it produces an addiction response when threatened, and is defended by the abrahamic method of deceit rather than just the simple statement “I have faith that if I live my life by jesus’ teachings that my life, the life of those around me, the life of my polity, and of mankind, in this world, and in the next if there is one, will be better than if I did not.” If you must argue your faith. you have none. Faith needs no argument. That is what it means to have faith.
-
“It would be cool to watch you debate theologians.”
—“It would also be cool to watch you debate theologians. Not pansy ones either but the few who are also high level scientists.”— A Friend
[I]t‘s a very simple argument: What is a theologian claiming: Good and wisdom, or True and demonstrable? What can they testify to? How can they demonstrate it? How can they warranty it? What is their incentive? What are the costs if they lie? Why is the world of science good for man, and the world of religion devolutionary for man? Why is science of man good and the actions of god evil? Why did christians jews and muslims create a dark age? Why are the churches full of our least competent people? Why did the churches fail to reform? Why did Europe abandon christianity? Why did the evangelical movement succeed and why are Americans leaving the church and dividing half secular and half evangelical? What should the church have done when theology was continuously defeated by science and proven false? Why did the church resist literacy of the people. Why did the church resist the printing of the bible in the people’s language? Why did the monastic orders arise if not in response tot he corruption of the church? Why did the church need the vikings to fight the crusades? Was christianity adopted or was it enforced in the past as islam is still enforced today? Did the christians destroy the ancient world, it’s monuments, it’s arts and letters, its academies, its accumulated knowledge, and instead of restoring roman order, aristocracy, literacy, and greek knowledge, drag Europe and the pagan peoples into dark ages? Why is the abrahamic method of deceit used by jews, christians and muslims used again by marxists, postmodernists, and feminist to repeat the same destruction of the old world to destroy the new – this time with false promise of economic and political reward instead of life after death and political reward? Why do theologians use the same arguments as the marxists, postmodernists, and feminists who destroy this world. I have never found a theological argument I cannot defeat. We know too much now. Hence (a) there currently are, and have been, many gods. (b) all gods exist as information, (c) this information exists in the minds of man, (d) this information influences individual and group behavior (e) this behavior is often good, but vulnerable to conquest – which was the purpose of the church. (f) but as a consequence it produces an addiction response when threatened, and is defended by the abrahamic method of deceit rather than just the simple statement “I have faith that if I live my life by jesus’ teachings that my life, the life of those around me, the life of my polity, and of mankind, in this world, and in the next if there is one, will be better than if I did not.” If you must argue your faith. you have none. Faith needs no argument. That is what it means to have faith.