Once you understand (((they))) are all cognitively female, everything else they do makes perfect sense. Really. Like I said, the competitive differences between human groups are reducible to a very small number of traits that express gender differences during development. Our free will is limited by these differences. We know not what we do. We just do.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Let’s Get This Labor Thing Straight.
Let’s get this labor thing straight. Labor has no value other than under capitalism we can create a consumer out of the laborer which organizes the very fractional contribution of labor into large groups producing many complex parts, and the complex part provides the value. The profit on the price is required to organize others in this network. That’s the whole thing. If you’re ‘labor’ you aren’t ‘value’ to others, since none of us is productive enough to matter. What matters is multipliers, and labor isn’t one. Labor’s primary value lies in (a) you are at least self supporting because (b) as a slave you’re even less productive, and (c) as a barbarian you’re a parasite. The value is in organizing using incentives using prices and profits.
-
Let’s Get This Labor Thing Straight.
Let’s get this labor thing straight. Labor has no value other than under capitalism we can create a consumer out of the laborer which organizes the very fractional contribution of labor into large groups producing many complex parts, and the complex part provides the value. The profit on the price is required to organize others in this network. That’s the whole thing. If you’re ‘labor’ you aren’t ‘value’ to others, since none of us is productive enough to matter. What matters is multipliers, and labor isn’t one. Labor’s primary value lies in (a) you are at least self supporting because (b) as a slave you’re even less productive, and (c) as a barbarian you’re a parasite. The value is in organizing using incentives using prices and profits.
-
The brains of more intelligent individuals are interconnected to a lesser extent.
https://t.co/h5eBggGVptRetweeted Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf): —“The brains of more intelligent individuals are interconnected to a lesser extent, having less dendrites at command in the cerebral cortex. https://t.co/h5eBggGVpt https://t.co/jmuvEm9TiA “— 1) I suspect it’s just the physics of the neural economy: breadth neural searches are cheaper and faster with lower returns on recursion than depth searches with higher recursion. In general, minor variations in neural organization should produce large variations in cognition. 2) Fast, wide, and synthetic vs slow, deep, and analytic. 3) Feelings (emotions) are of high value in synthetic searches, and approach zero value in analytic searches. 4) Modeling AI using emotions as gauges of change in the state of ‘assets’ taught me a great deal. 5) Produces extraordinary precision by the intersection just a few variables. 6) It’s dehumanizing to some degree, but it’s so obvious its painful. 7) Thanks for the great tweet (as always your feed rocks.) 😉May 15, 2018 9:37am -
The brains of more intelligent individuals are interconnected to a lesser extent.
https://t.co/h5eBggGVptRetweeted Rolf Degen (@DegenRolf): —“The brains of more intelligent individuals are interconnected to a lesser extent, having less dendrites at command in the cerebral cortex. https://t.co/h5eBggGVpt https://t.co/jmuvEm9TiA “— 1) I suspect it’s just the physics of the neural economy: breadth neural searches are cheaper and faster with lower returns on recursion than depth searches with higher recursion. In general, minor variations in neural organization should produce large variations in cognition. 2) Fast, wide, and synthetic vs slow, deep, and analytic. 3) Feelings (emotions) are of high value in synthetic searches, and approach zero value in analytic searches. 4) Modeling AI using emotions as gauges of change in the state of ‘assets’ taught me a great deal. 5) Produces extraordinary precision by the intersection just a few variables. 6) It’s dehumanizing to some degree, but it’s so obvious its painful. 7) Thanks for the great tweet (as always your feed rocks.) 😉May 15, 2018 9:37am -
We Are Men, and Learning from Truth to Power Is Heroic
—“CURT, I’M SORRY I SAID…”— Guess what. You didn’t offend me. I understand what it is to be a man, and you are being a man. You are trying to speak truth to power so to speak (not that I have much power). And this is what men do, what and cowards do not do. They shame, ridicule, gossip, rally, and undermine the person rather than defeat the argument. My work is extremely complicated because what I produce is self organizing, and via-negativa, rather than deliberate – and self organizing systems are hard to understand. We express a series of limits, and all else is possible within them rather than proposing an ideal. This means that instead of tracing a single line of thought through it’s various conditions (like a software program), we have to learn all the systems of limits, and run cases through those limits until we understand how all those limits work together. Criticism is good. Systematically trying to undermine me hurts my message, because it decreases the willingness of people to pay the high investment cost of learning a self organizing system – and therefore hurts our people. So by disagreeing with me we find a man’s way of learning – not by submission and obedience, but by demonstration of commitments to truth even to the powerful. Now, I prefer critical questions rather than attacks, but I can tell the difference between intellectually honest and moral criticism, and the opposite. There is a very great difference between criticism because something doesn’t make sense to you, or you disagree with it, and undermining because it conflicts with a malinvestment that you have made, and are desperately trying to protect from the truth. In that case, it is me who must speak truth to your power (assuming I have the time and energy and you some degree of intellectual honesty. -Cheers
-
We Are Men, and Learning from Truth to Power Is Heroic
—“CURT, I’M SORRY I SAID…”— Guess what. You didn’t offend me. I understand what it is to be a man, and you are being a man. You are trying to speak truth to power so to speak (not that I have much power). And this is what men do, what and cowards do not do. They shame, ridicule, gossip, rally, and undermine the person rather than defeat the argument. My work is extremely complicated because what I produce is self organizing, and via-negativa, rather than deliberate – and self organizing systems are hard to understand. We express a series of limits, and all else is possible within them rather than proposing an ideal. This means that instead of tracing a single line of thought through it’s various conditions (like a software program), we have to learn all the systems of limits, and run cases through those limits until we understand how all those limits work together. Criticism is good. Systematically trying to undermine me hurts my message, because it decreases the willingness of people to pay the high investment cost of learning a self organizing system – and therefore hurts our people. So by disagreeing with me we find a man’s way of learning – not by submission and obedience, but by demonstration of commitments to truth even to the powerful. Now, I prefer critical questions rather than attacks, but I can tell the difference between intellectually honest and moral criticism, and the opposite. There is a very great difference between criticism because something doesn’t make sense to you, or you disagree with it, and undermining because it conflicts with a malinvestment that you have made, and are desperately trying to protect from the truth. In that case, it is me who must speak truth to your power (assuming I have the time and energy and you some degree of intellectual honesty. -Cheers
-
—“Curt, Do you advocate XYZ?”—
I provide a RANGE of solutions for different people (which is my job) and an OPTIMUM solution for OUR people. So it is sometimes confusing to readers which I’m talking about. In other words while there is a perfect government, under normal conditions we must provide sufficient flexibility so that we can celebrate windfalls and suffer wars. Utopia is for children who wish to avoid the burden of calculation (reasoning as an adatpation to change). To some degree a perfect government provides predictability and adaptability as do markets when subject to pressures of plenty or scarcity. And thereby reduces the burden of calculation of adaptation. And even better, insurance such that it can, by prohibition on rents, and debts (which can be a form of rent), afford to adapt. May 14, 2018 8:29am
-
—“Curt, Do you advocate XYZ?”—
I provide a RANGE of solutions for different people (which is my job) and an OPTIMUM solution for OUR people. So it is sometimes confusing to readers which I’m talking about. In other words while there is a perfect government, under normal conditions we must provide sufficient flexibility so that we can celebrate windfalls and suffer wars. Utopia is for children who wish to avoid the burden of calculation (reasoning as an adatpation to change). To some degree a perfect government provides predictability and adaptability as do markets when subject to pressures of plenty or scarcity. And thereby reduces the burden of calculation of adaptation. And even better, insurance such that it can, by prohibition on rents, and debts (which can be a form of rent), afford to adapt. May 14, 2018 8:29am
-
The Incentive to Produce Quality Goods, Services, and Information
by Steve Pender In a village/polity populated entirely by family/loved ones, there is lower incentive to produce low quality goods, since the only people using them would be allies/family, and their use of those goods diminishes the survival of the polity. Voluntarily producing lower quality goods and profiting more due to higher markup opportunities would be seen as a form of treason to one’s people. 3 scenarios: EMPIRE: Individual with high quality production ability + lower-quality strangers = incentivized to lower production standards and privatize profit COSMOPOLITAN FREE MARKET: Individual with high quality production ability + high-quality strangers = incentivized to maximize producer surplus (profits) since no long-term alliance NATIONALISM: High quality production ability + high quality family/allies = incentivized to maximize production quality, lower incentive to profit (since profit is just a means to ensure privatized survival) Why do people maximize profit? Because they can’t guarantee long-term alliances with those around them, and maximizing profit is the means to increase long-term survival. We don’t feel the strong need to profit with trade between friends/family. Why is that? Because long-term survival is more important.May 14, 2018 8:31am