Do you know what the cognitive bias called NAXALT is, and how you can identify that a woman, or a male lacking a father is speaking by the use of this cognitive bias? Men cognitively perceive distributions and speak in distributions. Women fear distributions and speak in equality or indifferences. So you merely demonstrate the fact that we are different in cognitive function (which the science says anyway – men and women have different brain structures), just as we are in anti-social behavior, with men biasing toward physical crime and women biasing toward emotional and psychological crime (psychosis). So, no the statement is simply true. Which is one of the primary causes for the relative absence of women in powerful positions in high risk and competitive organizations, versus the relative dominance of women in parasitic monopolistic bureaucracies like the government and education. We are paid in no small part by our loyalty.
Source: Original Site Post
-
We Are All Compatible, Precisely Because Truth Is Truth Regardless of Our Differences
WE ARE ALL COMPATIBLE, PRECISELY BECAUSE TRUTH IS TRUTH REGARDLESS OF OUR DIFFERENCES My specialty is in not erring. I don’t err often. For the simple reason that I work harder at not being wrong than almost anyone else. It’s my job. My emotional condition has no bearing on whether I speak the truth. Your technique of trying to say it does is just lying. Right? You’re engaging in deception? By trying to say the truth is other than the truth? By saying a normal distribution (bell curve) doesn’t exist whenever we describe the properties of any set of people? Again. It’s a cognitive bias (the lack of reason) that you’re demonstrating not reason. This is why men like me don’t debate with all but a minority of women like you. Because all but a minority of women like you are cognitively biases such that you cannot tell the difference between the TRUE, the GOOD, and the PREFERABLE. Because you are not in fact reasoning, but intuiting (feeling). Evolution made you the way you are so that you will defend your children no matter how bad they are for the family and tribe. It’s not an act of reason, but an instinct. What’s true is true whether you like it or not or whether it’s in your interests or not. I criticize arationality regardless of gender. That’s equality. No deceit allowed is equality. We are all compatible even if we are all different and unequal. it’s by advocating, cooperating and criticizing an conflicting that we calculate an evolutionary path through a universe largely hostile to life.
-
We Are All Compatible, Precisely Because Truth Is Truth Regardless of Our Differences
WE ARE ALL COMPATIBLE, PRECISELY BECAUSE TRUTH IS TRUTH REGARDLESS OF OUR DIFFERENCES My specialty is in not erring. I don’t err often. For the simple reason that I work harder at not being wrong than almost anyone else. It’s my job. My emotional condition has no bearing on whether I speak the truth. Your technique of trying to say it does is just lying. Right? You’re engaging in deception? By trying to say the truth is other than the truth? By saying a normal distribution (bell curve) doesn’t exist whenever we describe the properties of any set of people? Again. It’s a cognitive bias (the lack of reason) that you’re demonstrating not reason. This is why men like me don’t debate with all but a minority of women like you. Because all but a minority of women like you are cognitively biases such that you cannot tell the difference between the TRUE, the GOOD, and the PREFERABLE. Because you are not in fact reasoning, but intuiting (feeling). Evolution made you the way you are so that you will defend your children no matter how bad they are for the family and tribe. It’s not an act of reason, but an instinct. What’s true is true whether you like it or not or whether it’s in your interests or not. I criticize arationality regardless of gender. That’s equality. No deceit allowed is equality. We are all compatible even if we are all different and unequal. it’s by advocating, cooperating and criticizing an conflicting that we calculate an evolutionary path through a universe largely hostile to life.
-
I can’t write proofs for every post. Besides. People wouldn’t read them.
UM, LET ME HELP YOU….. —“Just an opinion”— It is a fact that we can, using the big 5/6 inventory, and breaking those dimensions into traits, measure the differences between the expressions of those genders, and this measurement has been done at vast scale over many years. These traits map to reward (endocrine) systems. Those endocrine systems map to stages of the prey and reproductive drives, since in evolutionary history that is the minimum necessary framework evolution was able to work with and extend into the full suite of properties of homo-sapiens-sapiens. As such, while I use Ordinary Language Terms, those terms are necessary to translate those differences in endocrine responses and therefore incentives, to a narrative set of comparisons that people can understand. In this case, men in fact do demonstrate loyalty and women far less, while men do not experience what women call devotion (the feeling they have toward children) on anywhere near the scale. I then translate these terms into economic language such that we see the equilibrial relation between male and female behavior. I do this so that I can explain to people in scientific terms what their intuitions mean, sot hat they know they are both genetically determined (80%) in utero/developmentally determined (20%) and not choice. Because they are not choice, that means we must not expect to CONVINCE each other. Instead the solution is not to achieve one solution or the other but to create exchanges where both get SOME or MOST of what they want (both personally and politically) even if none of us get ALL of what we want. Now because I just assume you are a decent person (it is my default presumption even if I must tolerate the occasional solipsism from the intuitions of women, and the occasional dominance expression from overconfident young men), I’m taking the time to explain this to you – even though you did not take the time to investigate me, or ask me how I came to such conclusions, or even construct a rational or scientific opposition, just an emotive one. But I cannot cover the subjects I do, which literally encompass the entirety of the human spectrum of knowledge and explain every statement in argumentative form. Instead, people tend to follow me for rather long periods, and I post a lot of aphorisms, contrasts (as do confucians, but closed), series, spectra, and grids as well as “SKETCHES” because if I wrote proofs for every idea I put forth (a) no one could comprehend them, and (b) I would cover 1/100000’th of the subjects that I do. OK? Thank you. 😉
-
I can’t write proofs for every post. Besides. People wouldn’t read them.
UM, LET ME HELP YOU….. —“Just an opinion”— It is a fact that we can, using the big 5/6 inventory, and breaking those dimensions into traits, measure the differences between the expressions of those genders, and this measurement has been done at vast scale over many years. These traits map to reward (endocrine) systems. Those endocrine systems map to stages of the prey and reproductive drives, since in evolutionary history that is the minimum necessary framework evolution was able to work with and extend into the full suite of properties of homo-sapiens-sapiens. As such, while I use Ordinary Language Terms, those terms are necessary to translate those differences in endocrine responses and therefore incentives, to a narrative set of comparisons that people can understand. In this case, men in fact do demonstrate loyalty and women far less, while men do not experience what women call devotion (the feeling they have toward children) on anywhere near the scale. I then translate these terms into economic language such that we see the equilibrial relation between male and female behavior. I do this so that I can explain to people in scientific terms what their intuitions mean, sot hat they know they are both genetically determined (80%) in utero/developmentally determined (20%) and not choice. Because they are not choice, that means we must not expect to CONVINCE each other. Instead the solution is not to achieve one solution or the other but to create exchanges where both get SOME or MOST of what they want (both personally and politically) even if none of us get ALL of what we want. Now because I just assume you are a decent person (it is my default presumption even if I must tolerate the occasional solipsism from the intuitions of women, and the occasional dominance expression from overconfident young men), I’m taking the time to explain this to you – even though you did not take the time to investigate me, or ask me how I came to such conclusions, or even construct a rational or scientific opposition, just an emotive one. But I cannot cover the subjects I do, which literally encompass the entirety of the human spectrum of knowledge and explain every statement in argumentative form. Instead, people tend to follow me for rather long periods, and I post a lot of aphorisms, contrasts (as do confucians, but closed), series, spectra, and grids as well as “SKETCHES” because if I wrote proofs for every idea I put forth (a) no one could comprehend them, and (b) I would cover 1/100000’th of the subjects that I do. OK? Thank you. 😉
-
Man Is Amoral
Man is wired (evolved) to know what is in his interests, what will cause retaliation, and what will purchase options on future cooperation, and that he must punish cheaters(defectors). It’s just in our interests, increasingly, to act morally, because of the returns on moral cooperation, but if you look at history and if you look at the total absence outside of western civilizatino of high trust other than perhaps japane (which sacrifices truth for it), then the answer is just the opposite. If I accomplish anything I hope to eradictate is christian/rousseauian/feminine fantasy that man is wired for morality. Man evolved to be eminently practical: the act predatorially, parasiticlaly, reciproccally, and to invest, as opportunity presents itself. We are just an extension of the laws of physics, and our only difference is the ability to use memory to keep accounting of whether we’re gaining or losing over time in an environment of possible cooperation.
-
Man Is Amoral
Man is wired (evolved) to know what is in his interests, what will cause retaliation, and what will purchase options on future cooperation, and that he must punish cheaters(defectors). It’s just in our interests, increasingly, to act morally, because of the returns on moral cooperation, but if you look at history and if you look at the total absence outside of western civilizatino of high trust other than perhaps japane (which sacrifices truth for it), then the answer is just the opposite. If I accomplish anything I hope to eradictate is christian/rousseauian/feminine fantasy that man is wired for morality. Man evolved to be eminently practical: the act predatorially, parasiticlaly, reciproccally, and to invest, as opportunity presents itself. We are just an extension of the laws of physics, and our only difference is the ability to use memory to keep accounting of whether we’re gaining or losing over time in an environment of possible cooperation.
-
The Overconfidence Of The Contemporary Populace
Usually people who want to debate aren’t knowledgeable enough, intelligent enough, or intellectually honest enough to bother with, but given a moderator I’ll try. —“Are Property Regimes Ponzi Schemes?”– Property isn’t a ponzi scheme (it’s not false) however it will (often) increasingly lead to the concentration of wealth, until it no longer can, unless certain safeguards are put in place (natural law). The reason for this concentration of wealth is that we tolerate financial rents today like we tolerated land rents of yesterday. The problem has been prohibiting rents. We can actually prevent rents today. But that means the price of such prevention is working while younger and older, direct redistribution of liquidity, the ending of consumer intersets, very strict nationalism to prevent immigration, and a requirement that women produce more than replacement rate children. So as always problems can be fixed if you’re a scientist, but not if you’re merely a rationalist, or a purveyor of moralistic fairy tales.
-
The Overconfidence Of The Contemporary Populace
Usually people who want to debate aren’t knowledgeable enough, intelligent enough, or intellectually honest enough to bother with, but given a moderator I’ll try. —“Are Property Regimes Ponzi Schemes?”– Property isn’t a ponzi scheme (it’s not false) however it will (often) increasingly lead to the concentration of wealth, until it no longer can, unless certain safeguards are put in place (natural law). The reason for this concentration of wealth is that we tolerate financial rents today like we tolerated land rents of yesterday. The problem has been prohibiting rents. We can actually prevent rents today. But that means the price of such prevention is working while younger and older, direct redistribution of liquidity, the ending of consumer intersets, very strict nationalism to prevent immigration, and a requirement that women produce more than replacement rate children. So as always problems can be fixed if you’re a scientist, but not if you’re merely a rationalist, or a purveyor of moralistic fairy tales.
-
A Priest Is the Enemy of Civilization
I prefer we return to a prohibition on priests, and a requirement that citizens, especially leading citizens, lead the rituals. As far as I know this is the optimum social model and priests are a threat to civilization. I prefer the rotation of ceremony among the population, regardless of age and gender. I prefer the protestant method with a male judge (moderator) and the community ‘speaking their minds’. This produces the optimum debate. The problem with female judges (moderators) is that women (really) cannot divorce themselves sufficiently (produce agency) and this is why men and women eventually prefer working for men whenever there is any differences in the group. I find it almost impossible just to listen to a female judge in court for the same reason I can’t tolerate a female speaker on theoretical instead of empirical (where women excel) content. This is because I am extremely sensitive to logical errors, and ‘cheats’ and women simply cannot reach male levels of speaking the uncomfortable truth regardless of its impact on the dominance hierarchy. And it is this willingness to speak the truth regardless of its impact on the hierarchy, and the risk to one’s self for having said it, that is the origin of the uniqueness of the west. Priests are as evil as pseudoscientists, bureaucracy and democracy. Never again.