THE EVOLUTION OF THE ART OF LYING: Abrahamism v1: Judaism against Babylon’s Aristocracy Abrahamism v2: Christianity against Western Aristocracy. Abrahamism v3: Islam against the ancient world’s Aristocracy Abrahamism v4: Marxism against the modern world’s Aristocracy. Abrahamism v5: French Postmodernism against the current world’s Aristocracy. Abrahamism v6: Islamism against the entire world’s Aristocracy. Curt Doolittle
Source: Original Site Post
-
Male and Female Cognitive Compatibility (Naxalt)
All general rules of arbitrary precision must of necessity refer to a distribution. The fact that there may be voluntary and involuntary outliers in that distribution does not influence the correspondence of the general rule. It is nearly impossible for women to learn to think as such for evolutionary reasons. It is necessary for men to think as such, for those same reasons. This is why ‘compatibility but inequality’ thesis is the best to live by. We must know when the other ‘sensibility’ (female case, male general rule) provides the answer to the question. Apr 19, 2018 7:57pm
-
Male and Female Cognitive Compatibility (Naxalt)
All general rules of arbitrary precision must of necessity refer to a distribution. The fact that there may be voluntary and involuntary outliers in that distribution does not influence the correspondence of the general rule. It is nearly impossible for women to learn to think as such for evolutionary reasons. It is necessary for men to think as such, for those same reasons. This is why ‘compatibility but inequality’ thesis is the best to live by. We must know when the other ‘sensibility’ (female case, male general rule) provides the answer to the question. Apr 19, 2018 7:57pm
-
Easy Way To Understand Personality Traits
The way to understand personality traits is to fill in the blanks: “In negotiations with others [trait] helps me with ….. ” 1) Ordliness (risk minimization) <-vs–> (reward maximization) Industriousness 2) Confrontation (risk minimization) <–vs–> (opportunity maximization) Politeness. As far as I know all emotions can be expressed in three dimensions: x) Dominance (Aggression) vs (Flight) Submission y) Pain vs Pleasure. z) Excitement vs Calm
-
Easy Way To Understand Personality Traits
The way to understand personality traits is to fill in the blanks: “In negotiations with others [trait] helps me with ….. ” 1) Ordliness (risk minimization) <-vs–> (reward maximization) Industriousness 2) Confrontation (risk minimization) <–vs–> (opportunity maximization) Politeness. As far as I know all emotions can be expressed in three dimensions: x) Dominance (Aggression) vs (Flight) Submission y) Pain vs Pleasure. z) Excitement vs Calm
-
VOXDAY’s Neologisms of Science and Their Explanations and Minor Corrections
VOXDAY’S NEOLOGISMS OF SCIENCE, THEIR EXPLANATIONS, AND MINOR CORRECTIONS. —“the great irony is that scientistry now stands condemned by its beloved scientodific metric. The New Atheists reasoned that religious faith must be false on the basis of presuming the eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence to the contrary being false, but now we actually know, we do not merely reason, that it is faith in science that is false due to irreproducibility.”— Well, that just means people are NOT in fact practicing science, but pseudoscience. Under falsificationism, we can’t claim something is true until we can’t possibly find a way for it to be false. All pseudoscience works by justification instead “it’s true because of x”, or it “would lead us to the conclusion x because of y”. Physicists, materials scientists(engineers), chemists, and most molecular biologists do in fact practice science. But it’s rather obvious that philosophers, sociologists and psychologists, and to a lesser degree economists, practice pseudoscience. ALthough I should point out that economists are not in fact in the pursuit of truth but utility, and as such largely engage in selection bias (cherry picking). And we can test this by the correlation between political intuitions, and subdiscipline self selection. For those that do not understand the neologism (new terminology) Scientody: the process (the method) Scientage: the knowledge base Scientistry: the profession —“The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific”— Given my love for deflationary language I sort of approve, although for my purposes I don’t know if I’ll switch from using “Scientific Method” to “Scientody” quite yet. As for the Alt Right’s Scientific bias, the criteria a,b,c, are those of (a) poppers critical rationalism, (b) a consequence of popper’s critical preference, and (c) the increasing costs of marginal expansions of knowledge requiring increasingly granular investigations. This last “c” is where Popper went wrong, as nearly all philosophers go wrong, in that decidability is provided by the economics of the return: least cost, for the simple reason that nature cannot but choose the first, cheapest, option available. However, contrary to the OP, science is not based on democracy but *the market* for status signaling. The problem is, like any other status signal, status via publication within the scientific method requires high investment, and therefore those investments are often defended. So the market may change slowly and only after a paradigm shift caused by exhaustion of the market for signals either by market failure, or market replacement. (h/t: thanks to Bill Anderson, whose OP is not sharable ) Apr 20, 2018 9:16am
-
VOXDAY’s Neologisms of Science and Their Explanations and Minor Corrections
VOXDAY’S NEOLOGISMS OF SCIENCE, THEIR EXPLANATIONS, AND MINOR CORRECTIONS. —“the great irony is that scientistry now stands condemned by its beloved scientodific metric. The New Atheists reasoned that religious faith must be false on the basis of presuming the eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence to the contrary being false, but now we actually know, we do not merely reason, that it is faith in science that is false due to irreproducibility.”— Well, that just means people are NOT in fact practicing science, but pseudoscience. Under falsificationism, we can’t claim something is true until we can’t possibly find a way for it to be false. All pseudoscience works by justification instead “it’s true because of x”, or it “would lead us to the conclusion x because of y”. Physicists, materials scientists(engineers), chemists, and most molecular biologists do in fact practice science. But it’s rather obvious that philosophers, sociologists and psychologists, and to a lesser degree economists, practice pseudoscience. ALthough I should point out that economists are not in fact in the pursuit of truth but utility, and as such largely engage in selection bias (cherry picking). And we can test this by the correlation between political intuitions, and subdiscipline self selection. For those that do not understand the neologism (new terminology) Scientody: the process (the method) Scientage: the knowledge base Scientistry: the profession —“The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific”— Given my love for deflationary language I sort of approve, although for my purposes I don’t know if I’ll switch from using “Scientific Method” to “Scientody” quite yet. As for the Alt Right’s Scientific bias, the criteria a,b,c, are those of (a) poppers critical rationalism, (b) a consequence of popper’s critical preference, and (c) the increasing costs of marginal expansions of knowledge requiring increasingly granular investigations. This last “c” is where Popper went wrong, as nearly all philosophers go wrong, in that decidability is provided by the economics of the return: least cost, for the simple reason that nature cannot but choose the first, cheapest, option available. However, contrary to the OP, science is not based on democracy but *the market* for status signaling. The problem is, like any other status signal, status via publication within the scientific method requires high investment, and therefore those investments are often defended. So the market may change slowly and only after a paradigm shift caused by exhaustion of the market for signals either by market failure, or market replacement. (h/t: thanks to Bill Anderson, whose OP is not sharable ) Apr 20, 2018 9:16am
-
More on English vs German
Q: What would English look like if it followed the grammar of German? by Vlad Andreev (From Quora) Have you geheard, we should to the German Grammar overswitch? That have i already yesterday gemade. The German Grammar could, itself tofirst, strange sound, but you will perhaps discover that it not so difficult is. It is yes only a Matter of Wordorder… wait but. Have i “geheard” gesaid? I estimate once, that there also other Factors be could. Firstens, the Verbs. The Present Perfect in English is not the same as the Perfekt Timeform on German. On German, corresponds she to the Simple Past on English, in the last Years becomes but also increasingly employed in order all past Forms to indicate. The perfective Aspect, on German, is with the Gerundform geformed. So, now say we Things so like “gefound” and “geshopped” and “atgelooked”. Wait, “atgelooked”? Right. Whereas on the old Language, we Things “looked at”, now we Things “atlook”. This is a separable Verb, so the Gerundmarker becomes in the Word insidegeinserted. Secondens, the Nouns. Each has a grammatical Gender, and it must with the Pronouns match in anaphoric Situations (in this Answer, i want it to avoid, new Morphemes to withupcome, or from the Old English to borrow: so it’s called the Phrase, not þēos Phrase, is but still toreferred as she). If one with the Goal operates, new Words not towardstoadd, and the existing Inflections to reuse (“in the last Years”, not “in the lasts Years”, because the adjectival Plural unmarked in English is), then are we already more or less there. Some Littlehoods remain: Questionwordorder, Compoundnouns, certain Verbconjugationdetails and a few more, but in the Principle should you on Denglish communicate can. Much Luck! ANOTHER: English: Here is a little demonstration of what English would roughly feel like if it had essentially the same grammar as German. Word order would perhaps be the most difficult for modern English speakers trying to understand it, but word inflections would be particularly hard to produce correctly, especially because of noun genders. English with German grammar: Here is a little demonstration thereof, how English itself rough feelen would, if it in’t General thesame Grammar hadde, as German. That wordorder weré perhaps the biggest Understandingdifficulty for Speaker of’t modernen English, but Wordendings weren particular difficult correct to producen, before all because of thes’ gendern’s thes’ nounen’s. German with English grammar: Hier ist ein klein demonstration von wie Englisch ungefährlich würd fühl, wenn es hatte wesentlichlich de selb grammatik wie Deutsch. Wortfolge war vielleicht de meist schwierig für modern Englisch sprechers versuchend zu verstehen es, aber wort endungs würd sein besonders schwer zu reproduzier richtiglich, vor all wegen von substantiv geschlechts. German: Hier ist eine kleine Demonstration davon, wie sich Englisch ungefähr anfühlen würde, wenn es im Wesentlichen dieselbe Grammatik hätte, wie Deutsch. Die Wortstellung wäre vielleicht die größte Verständnisschwierigkeit für Sprecher des modernen Englisch, aber Wortendungen wären besonders schwer richtig zu reproduzieren, vor allem wegen der Geschlechter der Substantive. Apr 20, 2018 9:54am
-
More on English vs German
Q: What would English look like if it followed the grammar of German? by Vlad Andreev (From Quora) Have you geheard, we should to the German Grammar overswitch? That have i already yesterday gemade. The German Grammar could, itself tofirst, strange sound, but you will perhaps discover that it not so difficult is. It is yes only a Matter of Wordorder… wait but. Have i “geheard” gesaid? I estimate once, that there also other Factors be could. Firstens, the Verbs. The Present Perfect in English is not the same as the Perfekt Timeform on German. On German, corresponds she to the Simple Past on English, in the last Years becomes but also increasingly employed in order all past Forms to indicate. The perfective Aspect, on German, is with the Gerundform geformed. So, now say we Things so like “gefound” and “geshopped” and “atgelooked”. Wait, “atgelooked”? Right. Whereas on the old Language, we Things “looked at”, now we Things “atlook”. This is a separable Verb, so the Gerundmarker becomes in the Word insidegeinserted. Secondens, the Nouns. Each has a grammatical Gender, and it must with the Pronouns match in anaphoric Situations (in this Answer, i want it to avoid, new Morphemes to withupcome, or from the Old English to borrow: so it’s called the Phrase, not þēos Phrase, is but still toreferred as she). If one with the Goal operates, new Words not towardstoadd, and the existing Inflections to reuse (“in the last Years”, not “in the lasts Years”, because the adjectival Plural unmarked in English is), then are we already more or less there. Some Littlehoods remain: Questionwordorder, Compoundnouns, certain Verbconjugationdetails and a few more, but in the Principle should you on Denglish communicate can. Much Luck! ANOTHER: English: Here is a little demonstration of what English would roughly feel like if it had essentially the same grammar as German. Word order would perhaps be the most difficult for modern English speakers trying to understand it, but word inflections would be particularly hard to produce correctly, especially because of noun genders. English with German grammar: Here is a little demonstration thereof, how English itself rough feelen would, if it in’t General thesame Grammar hadde, as German. That wordorder weré perhaps the biggest Understandingdifficulty for Speaker of’t modernen English, but Wordendings weren particular difficult correct to producen, before all because of thes’ gendern’s thes’ nounen’s. German with English grammar: Hier ist ein klein demonstration von wie Englisch ungefährlich würd fühl, wenn es hatte wesentlichlich de selb grammatik wie Deutsch. Wortfolge war vielleicht de meist schwierig für modern Englisch sprechers versuchend zu verstehen es, aber wort endungs würd sein besonders schwer zu reproduzier richtiglich, vor all wegen von substantiv geschlechts. German: Hier ist eine kleine Demonstration davon, wie sich Englisch ungefähr anfühlen würde, wenn es im Wesentlichen dieselbe Grammatik hätte, wie Deutsch. Die Wortstellung wäre vielleicht die größte Verständnisschwierigkeit für Sprecher des modernen Englisch, aber Wortendungen wären besonders schwer richtig zu reproduzieren, vor allem wegen der Geschlechter der Substantive. Apr 20, 2018 9:54am
-
Decidability Program in Basic 😉
DECIDABILITY 10 Law, 20 History 30 Science 40 Philosophy 50 Mythology (Literature) 60 Religion 70 GOTO: 10