You know, it’s common knowledge that women communicate in a language with semantics unavailable to men, and that the female mind is impenetrable to man.
But it is not common knowledge that
Did you ever notice that when a woman talks to a man she has to change her language? I don’t know if they consider it dumbing down, but they speak like they do
Did you ever notice that when a man talks to a woman he interprets it as ‘dumbing down’?
Did you ever notice that when a man walks into a room of women talking, they immediately change body language, behavior, and speech?
Did you ever notice that when a woman walks into a room of men talking they immediately change their body language, behavior and speech?
Always and everywhere.
Despite a relationship with what I consider one of the smarter or smartest women in technology, I have never met a woman I could talk to who possessed the what I would call the spatial-theoretical (predictive or modeling) capacity of man. I have met gay men who can largely interpret the language of women. And sometimes I think gay men have the advantage if they have the intelligence, of understanding both sides, and gay women understanding neither.
The only way I know how to test this is interpersonally by continuously expanding the scope of an idea that the person is familiar with to their limits. Men have much higher limits – OR they are unafraid to transgress their limits. I am not sure which, but I think that might be the answer, and I have no way of testing that – although it should be testable.
We are both ignorant of the minds of the others.
Women are shallower than the aspie men, and aspies tend to be nearly unlimited theoretically, and I am relatively sure that the same cognition that prevents women from violating NAXALT and violating groupthink, keeps them out of theory. Which is why women contribute almost nothing to theory that is true (feminism is a great example) but that women DO produce empirical work of high quality – especially about humans or the physical world.
In other words, women are limited at great scale by their integration. And we are limited at local scale by our lack of it.
Source: Original Site Post
-
(i have no idea why, but I am on a roll lately….. must have internalized the g
(i have no idea why, but I am on a roll lately….. must have internalized the grammar research phase.) -
(i have no idea why, but I am on a roll lately….. must have internalized the g
(i have no idea why, but I am on a roll lately….. must have internalized the grammar research phase.) -
GENES ARE THE ONLY REMAINING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
GENES ARE THE ONLY REMAINING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE -
GENES ARE THE ONLY REMAINING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
GENES ARE THE ONLY REMAINING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE -
The Incentives For Secession In Rational Terms
The unification of north and south in the declaration and constitution was always contentious. We had our first attempt at secession just after the war of 1812. Our next in the civil war. vast immigration and the depression that followed, disunity. The world wars created unity. The marxist/postmodern insurgency restored the original demands for secession. The reason for the original failure was fear of re-conquest by europe. The reason for the civil war failure was the profitability of the westward expansion and the threat that the industrialized north would be reduced to a marginalized minority and the west and the south the majority – and slavery is merely the primary driver by which that economic and political reality was perpetuated. The 1960s repeated the process. ANd today we are going thru it again. The difference today is we are no longer fighting over the profitability of westward expansion, but the profitability of homogeneous territorial peoples and heterogeneous. Or stated differently “the profits from immigration as a vehicle for selling off a conquered conteintent, and the profits of selling them consumer goods, is now neutralized by the world having caught up to western technology and institutions. What the world cannot catch up to is western demographics and culture. Becuase as far as I know no other people are capable of it. The means of future competition are (a) eugneics (b) artificial intelligence (c) demographic distribution and population Now, technology ALWAYS EVENTUALLY AND QUCKLY EQUILIBRATES. GENES DO NOT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? You cannot clean ‘polluted genes’. You can only separate good genes from bad Genes. -
The Incentives For Secession In Rational Terms
The unification of north and south in the declaration and constitution was always contentious. We had our first attempt at secession just after the war of 1812. Our next in the civil war. vast immigration and the depression that followed, disunity. The world wars created unity. The marxist/postmodern insurgency restored the original demands for secession. The reason for the original failure was fear of re-conquest by europe. The reason for the civil war failure was the profitability of the westward expansion and the threat that the industrialized north would be reduced to a marginalized minority and the west and the south the majority – and slavery is merely the primary driver by which that economic and political reality was perpetuated. The 1960s repeated the process. ANd today we are going thru it again. The difference today is we are no longer fighting over the profitability of westward expansion, but the profitability of homogeneous territorial peoples and heterogeneous. Or stated differently “the profits from immigration as a vehicle for selling off a conquered conteintent, and the profits of selling them consumer goods, is now neutralized by the world having caught up to western technology and institutions. What the world cannot catch up to is western demographics and culture. Becuase as far as I know no other people are capable of it. The means of future competition are (a) eugneics (b) artificial intelligence (c) demographic distribution and population Now, technology ALWAYS EVENTUALLY AND QUCKLY EQUILIBRATES. GENES DO NOT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? You cannot clean ‘polluted genes’. You can only separate good genes from bad Genes. -
Are Kurds From Iraq White (or What Race Are They)?
No. They are West Asians.
WEST ASIAN RACE
West Asian ( Armenian(R1b/J2) – Jewish(E1/J) – Greek(I2) — Southern Italians(I2) — Turk – Kurd – Iranian – Jordanian – Iraqi – Assyrian – Druze – Lebanese – Georgian – Caspian – Palestinian)
Tajik Race (Tajik – Bukhara Arab – Shugnan – Kallar – Sourashtran – Yadhava)
https://www.quora.com/Are-Kurds-from-Iraq-White-or-what-race-are-they
-
What Is The Minimum Average Group Iq Needed Before Civilization Can Independently Arise? Base Your Answer On An Iq Test Normed For Today’s Population.
—”What is the minimum average group IQ needed before civilization can independently arise? Base your answer on an IQ test normed for today’s population.”—-
RULES:1) Pareto always rules. 20% of the people always (and must) control 80% of the assets in order to organize a polity into voluntary (non slave/serf) production. Cities are markets are markets are formed by trade, and trade requires volition, and markets and volition make innovation possible if not only because the incentive exists.
2) Roughly speaking you need the top 20% of your population able to calculate in whatever means of calculation is available to you, in law, in accounts, in seasons, etc.
3) Empirically it appears that it’s pretty hard unless 20% is above 95 (the ability to learn by being taught without extraordinary repetition by the teacher), Above 105 to repair a system or a machine or a tool. Above 115 to learn by reading. About 122 to invent a machine or tool. A above 130 to synthesize new ideas and communicate them. Above 140 to originate an idea in the market for ideas. Although I think that limit is now approaching 150.
4) It depends greatly upon the means of economic productivity available to the population. lowest IQ’s for pastoral, higher for agrarian, higher for commercial, higher for industrial, higher for technological and assumedly higher for post technological. Worse, as technology increases the value of lower IQ’s decreases. Worse, as the distribution of technology increases, the value of lower IQ’s decreases (this is the world’s next upcoming great disaster – if it isn’t already).
5) If you can import knowledge of 140’s, 130’s 120’s into your group then you can benefit from the knoweldge and technollgy invented elsewhere.
6) what appears today, is that it is extremely difficult to modernize a country today with IQ’s under 97, and I think the real number is 105. The reason being that the window of opportunity for those countries to modernize and develop middle class (market) behaviors because of their ability to import institutions and technologies and knowledge, has passed. (I’m almost certain of it). BTW: thank the communists for destroying that window of opportunity. If your country has an aggregate IQ under 97, and certainly if it is below 90, it will be very difficult, for the simple reason that ther eis no human capital unused in relation to the available means of producing the profitability necessary to create a voluntary organization of production (market economy and a middle class to run it.)
7) as far as I know the primary competitive asset a country has going forward is a) homogeneity, b) median IQ >105, and a militia army dedicated to protecting both. That means china/korea/japan win. Europe could have but between immigration and civil war we have already (I’ve talked to the leading people about this repeatedly), lost something on the order of half to one standard deviation between 1800 and today through asymmetric reproduction. And we have lost the rest between 1965 and today through immigration.
Cheers.
Knowledge is not always pleasant.https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-minimum-average-group-IQ-needed-before-civilization-can-independently-arise-Base-your-answer-on-an-IQ-test-normed-for-today’s-population
-
Can Marx’s Labor Theory Of Value And Marginalist Economics Be Coherently Combined Without Any Essential Loss To Both Sides?
No. Marxism is pseudoscience and contrary to incentives and demonstrated behavior – even contrary to evolutionary necessity – and marginalist economics is both logical and empirical and corresponds to incentives and demonstrated behavior – and it’s an expression of evolutionary necessity
https://www.quora.com/Can-Marxs-labor-theory-of-value-and-marginalist-economics-be-coherently-combined-without-any-essential-loss-to-both-sides