Source: Original Site Post

  • Advice For Young Men (And Women)

    TLDR: “Never marry if there is any chance of divorce. You are not special. Either you are socially, emotionally, morally, familially, economically, , compatible or you are not.” Someone asked me for advice on finding a successful relationship that will endure. In propertarian tradition, here is the via negativa advice I would give. Hopefully I’ll add to this list over the coming weeks. This is the evidence of how people act over time. LIST: 1) Men are more sentimental than women. That’s the data. Sorry. 2) For women, men are disposable resources. Children are permanent assets. For men, women and her brood are our asset – until we have adult sons. We and our sons are our resources. 3) We emotionally, intellectually, and physically mature at different rates, and some men peak later than others. This tends to correspond fairly obviously to your body type. Some men peak at 17, some at 25, some at 35, and some at 45. It is easier to peak early, but much better to peak later. 4) Most men are insufficiently adult and independent in their 20’s – too dependent upon women for social circles, and too dependent upon women for entertainment, and too dependent upon them for emotional input. This is to women, the same as a spendthrift woman is to a man. It means you aren’t ready for a mate. 5) – As I understand the data, men of the past two if not three generation are infantilized and this is delaying their maturity significantly – at a time when their marketability is declining due to female economic utility. 6) You do not ‘find’ women directly, but as a byproduct of achievement in physical, social, business, craft, or monetary performance. Build a network of friends, a career, assets, and an inventory of experiences. In other words, accumulate skills and responsibilities on the one hand, or social circles on the other, or assets otherwise. There is no substitute for demonstrated success *no matter how small*. Men are very simple, and have much more agency, but that simplicity is confusing for women. Friends, assets, achievements, and physical fitness are evidence for her to work with. Being fit doesn’t hurt either. Women have a higher sexual market value, but have less control over altering their market value. Men have lower sexual market value but have nearly endless control over altering that value. 7) Women who sense eagerness are put off by (a) you are not a scarcity if you are eager and therefore not valuable, and (b) it is harder to ‘see and feel you’. You are always better off being physical, being interesting, providing, expanding the circle of friends, and most importantly funny. Anticipating her wants and needs and demonstrating it now and then generally wins most points. (this is the hardest for us to do. I focus on satisfying her long term wants, and letting her tell me her short term wants.) The same is true for women as well. A woman who puts out too soon or hang’s-on repels the desirable man. The best female strategy is to use biomimicry + proximity. Act like a flower and place yourself in proximity to desired male target so he may “discover”, “find” or “hunt” you. 8) Men must provide limits. There must be things you will not do. This keeps you from failing the sh-t test. Tell her you can and can’t do things, that the two of you will succeed or fail at doing things. Never tell her that her wants are false – she lacks the agency to do anything about them. Women have no agency. We provide agency. That’s what it means to ‘be a man’. We provide agency beyond the Nest. 9) Increase in Male and Female choices increase the viability of a long term marriage. Choices are the result of genetics, upbringing, wealth, education, and social, political, and economic circumstances. Such marriages have fewer opportunities for ‘defecting up’ and fewer stress incentives to do so. Conversely, lack of choices decrease the viability of a long term marriage because of stresses, stresses of compromise because of stresses, and opportunity for defection to relieve those stresses, or obtain better opportunities. 10) NEVER MARRY EARLY OUT OF FEAR OF SINGLENESS, EMOTIONAL, SEXUAL OR FINANCIAL CONVENIENCE. Women under 35 are by and large insane unless they have had brothers, very strong and capable fathers, or three or more children. Marrying early accumulates debt and a divorce wastes a decade, or about 1/3 of your lifetime ‘easy’ performance. Ditch her. Move in with other men who are ambitious. Save money. And trade up to a better less crazy woman when you are ready. Otherwise she will marry you, bear one or more children, ditch you for an upgrade because her children take all her attention and you were just a means of demonstrating to her friends and self that she is marketable, and not left behind, and she will make the next 20 years impossible for you financially, and you will be poor in old age because of her. 11 – MARRIAGE IS A FAIRLY SIMPLE CONTRACT – Marriage isn’t complicated legally – especially under natural law – it’s replaceable by: … (a) formation of a partnership or llc, where the partnership agreement lays out all terms of construction and dissolution. … (b) grant of full reciprocal power of attorney. Marriage is in fact a partnership agreement with normal exit conditions. Either make a contract, or assume the contract the state has made for you. And then fight to ensure that the state enforces your explicit contract rather than the normative one. 12) I suppose I didn’t address the ‘fit’ side of the argument and I probably should do that. However, anyone asking me for advice is probably on the IQ/Openness, and Accommodating side of the bias spectrum. 13) I suppose I didn’t address the “we no longer marry for economic demands but for friend and entertainment demands”. Of emotional fulfillment, access to sex and reproduction, economic value, and old age security, the data says that marriage tends to be one of friendship, sex, and economic cost sharing. The rest of the previous dependencies are gone. (this is far more true in the states than in europe. Europe is still more provincial than the states in familial relations.) 14) I don’t think people have any values different from those that I’m stating here. I think they are just unable to introspectively address and articulate them. 15) Any man asking someone like me for advice is going to be advanced in intellectual maturity (the benefit of delayed emotional maturity). And my advice is fairly constant: to catch a mouse make a noise like cheese – and deliver on the promise. Be a man. Man first, lover second, friend third, and an emotional asset not an emotional burden. The problem is, that some of us are not emotionally ready to be men until we have achieved emotional maturity, and asset maturity, to match our early intellectual maturity. –Edit: Added the following– Propertarianism has taught me that the more synthetic the mind the less introspection is available, and the more intuition is relied upon. In other words, I have never found a case where I cannot reduce the couple’s attraction into propertarian terms. There is much more than I can write on this subject, but I am not trying to via-positiva tell what to do (which is infinitely variable) but via-positiva tell what NOT to do, which is rather consistent. If I wanted to be a popular author I would write about relationships, marriage, sex, business, fashion and art in propertarian langauge. Because that’s what’s most interesting to people. Unfortunately I write about truth, law, institutions, and group evolutionary strategy, which, while very interesting to me, is not so interesting to other people. 😉
  • 1 – Reciprocity is an evolutionary necessity for any species that is capable of

    1 – Reciprocity is an evolutionary necessity for any species that is capable of voluntary cooperation. 2 – The test of reciprocity is prior investment (cost/expenditure) 3 – Reciprocity is decidable independent of preference. 4 – Local allocations of decidability over property (investments) evolved to preserve reciprocity and prevent retaliation cycles. 5 – The principle determinants of property allocations are marriage and inheritance structures, which in turn are dependent upon agrarian, pastoral demands, and hunter gatherer phases. 6 – The six moral intuitions can be divided into defense of private investment, and defense of commons. 7 – Male and Female brain structures and reproductive strategies, and moral biases vary (predictably), producing the demonstrated distributions that exist everywhere.
  • 1 – Reciprocity is an evolutionary necessity for any species that is capable of

    1 – Reciprocity is an evolutionary necessity for any species that is capable of voluntary cooperation. 2 – The test of reciprocity is prior investment (cost/expenditure) 3 – Reciprocity is decidable independent of preference. 4 – Local allocations of decidability over property (investments) evolved to preserve reciprocity and prevent retaliation cycles. 5 – The principle determinants of property allocations are marriage and inheritance structures, which in turn are dependent upon agrarian, pastoral demands, and hunter gatherer phases. 6 – The six moral intuitions can be divided into defense of private investment, and defense of commons. 7 – Male and Female brain structures and reproductive strategies, and moral biases vary (predictably), producing the demonstrated distributions that exist everywhere.
  • Non Problems In Artificial Intelligence

    As far as I know, the binding problem is a non problem. (a) there is no reason we cannot produce the three generations of artificial intelligence other than the capital investment in the hardware, and heat problems. (AI (lite, tasks), General AI, Conscious AI). (b) As far as I know the storage of sparse data problem is solvable and assists in the hardware and heat problem. And as far as I know operational language provides the symbols necessary to store such data, and formal language provides the input output and grammar. As far as I know the limit of imitating neurons is symbol production (semantics and grammar). As far as I know n-dimensional manifolds allow commensurability, storage, and searching of all possible concepts open to human consideration, albeit, in a geometry we cannot imagine, but which a machine can make (easy) use of. (c) as far as I know the “ethical/moral” AI problem is solvable through the combination of i) competition (a firmware conscience) given that hardware memory unlike wetware memory is open to continuous inspection – right down to the register level; and ii) inclusion of a title(property) dimension to all grammars. (our english grammar both explicitly and implicitly does so). (d) to say that we can duplicate the human mind is rather … ridiculous for the simple reason that it’s the last possible thing we should want to do- humans are amoral, and choose moral and immoral actions pragmatically. It’s just pragmatic to act morally. Man is a super-predator, and there is no value in creating an artificially intelligent super-predator. Ergo, duplicating the human mind should be at best illegal, and at worst on the part of a war crime. Instead, machines requires a means of decidability,and a symbolic system, and an auditing system, rendered in human readable grammars. And we provide it with decidability. Not amoral decidability. But moral. (from a previous post) There are three different stages of Artificial Intelligence we have to discuss: 1) Specific Artificial Intelligence (imitation intelligence) SAI can perform routine tasks and do so better than people, and is bound by algorithmic limits. Achieved by sufficient hardware and processing speed, algorithms, and existing software and databases. vs 2) General Artificial Intelligence (functional intelligence) GAI can solve problems and make decisions, can be bound by limits and act morally. Achieved by sufficient hardware, processing speed, algorithms, and I suspect new software and database structures (think video cards and geometry) vs 3) Conscious Artificial Intelligence (creative intelligence) CAI can want, hypothesize, identify opportunities, theorize, create, invent, and learn, evolve, transcend, and circumvent limits and morality. Achieved by what I suspect will require new hardware and embedded software, with new software and database structures (as above)
  • Non Problems In Artificial Intelligence

    As far as I know, the binding problem is a non problem. (a) there is no reason we cannot produce the three generations of artificial intelligence other than the capital investment in the hardware, and heat problems. (AI (lite, tasks), General AI, Conscious AI). (b) As far as I know the storage of sparse data problem is solvable and assists in the hardware and heat problem. And as far as I know operational language provides the symbols necessary to store such data, and formal language provides the input output and grammar. As far as I know the limit of imitating neurons is symbol production (semantics and grammar). As far as I know n-dimensional manifolds allow commensurability, storage, and searching of all possible concepts open to human consideration, albeit, in a geometry we cannot imagine, but which a machine can make (easy) use of. (c) as far as I know the “ethical/moral” AI problem is solvable through the combination of i) competition (a firmware conscience) given that hardware memory unlike wetware memory is open to continuous inspection – right down to the register level; and ii) inclusion of a title(property) dimension to all grammars. (our english grammar both explicitly and implicitly does so). (d) to say that we can duplicate the human mind is rather … ridiculous for the simple reason that it’s the last possible thing we should want to do- humans are amoral, and choose moral and immoral actions pragmatically. It’s just pragmatic to act morally. Man is a super-predator, and there is no value in creating an artificially intelligent super-predator. Ergo, duplicating the human mind should be at best illegal, and at worst on the part of a war crime. Instead, machines requires a means of decidability,and a symbolic system, and an auditing system, rendered in human readable grammars. And we provide it with decidability. Not amoral decidability. But moral. (from a previous post) There are three different stages of Artificial Intelligence we have to discuss: 1) Specific Artificial Intelligence (imitation intelligence) SAI can perform routine tasks and do so better than people, and is bound by algorithmic limits. Achieved by sufficient hardware and processing speed, algorithms, and existing software and databases. vs 2) General Artificial Intelligence (functional intelligence) GAI can solve problems and make decisions, can be bound by limits and act morally. Achieved by sufficient hardware, processing speed, algorithms, and I suspect new software and database structures (think video cards and geometry) vs 3) Conscious Artificial Intelligence (creative intelligence) CAI can want, hypothesize, identify opportunities, theorize, create, invent, and learn, evolve, transcend, and circumvent limits and morality. Achieved by what I suspect will require new hardware and embedded software, with new software and database structures (as above)
  • The Left hate decidability. God is just another means of it. Truth is just anoth

    The Left hate decidability. God is just another means of it. Truth is just another means of it. Law is just another means of it. They want the world to be run by gossip not law.
  • The Left hate decidability. God is just another means of it. Truth is just anoth

    The Left hate decidability. God is just another means of it. Truth is just another means of it. Law is just another means of it. They want the world to be run by gossip not law.
  • The Law

    No individual or organization shall choose an irreversible path when faced with uncertainty. No individual or organization shall take any action for which he may not pay worst case restitution.
  • The Law

    No individual or organization shall choose an irreversible path when faced with uncertainty. No individual or organization shall take any action for which he may not pay worst case restitution.
  • Origins Of Elves And Goblins (Green Man)

    A Goblin is a monstrous creature from European folklore, first attested in stories from the Middle Ages. They are ascribed various and conflicting abilities, temperaments and appearances depending on the story and country of origin. They are almost always small and grotesque, mischievous or outright evil, and greedy, especially for gold and jewelry. They often have magical abilities similar to a fairy or demon. (Similar creatures include brownies, dwarves, duendes, gnomes, imps, and kobolds.) English “Goblin” is first recorded in the 14th century and is probably from unattested Anglo-Norman gobelin, similar to Old French gobelin, already attested around 1195 in Ambroise of Normandy’s Guerre sainte, and to Medieval Latin gobelinus in Orderic Vitalis before 1141, which was the name of a devil or daemon haunting the country around Évreux, Normandy. It may be related both to German kobold and to Medieval Latin cabalus, or *gobalus, itself from Greek κόβαλος (kobalos), “rogue”, “knave”, “imp”, “goblin”. German Kobold contains the Germanic root kov- (Middle German Kobe “refuge, cavity”, “hollow in a rock”, Dial. English cove “hollow in a rock”, English “sheltered recess on a coast”, Old Norse kofi “hut, shed” ) which means originally a “hollow in the earth”. The word is probably related to Dial. Norman gobe “hollow in a cliff”, with simple suffix -lin or double suffixation -el-in (cf. Norman surnames Beuzelin, Gosselin,Étancelin, etc.) An elf (plural: elves) is a type of human-shaped supernatural being in Germanic mythology and folklore. In medieval Germanic-speaking cultures, elves seem generally to have been thought of as beings with magical powers and supernatural beauty, ambivalent towards everyday people and capable of either helping or hindering them. The word elf is found throughout the Germanic languages and seems originally to have meant ‘white being’. The Green Man is a god of vegetation and plant life. He symbolizes the life that is found in the natural plant world, and in the earth itself. Consider, for a moment, the forest. In the British Isles, the forests a thousand years ago were vast, spreading for miles and miles, farther than the eye could see. Because of the sheer size, the forest could be a dark and scary place. However, it was also a place you had to enter, whether you wanted to or not, because it provided meat for hunting, plants for eating, and wood for burning and building. Several other ancient cultures also had green deities, often with some features in common with the Green Man. These include: Humbaba, the ancient Sumerian guardian of the cedar forest, as well as Enkidu, the wild man of the forest in Sumerian mythology. As far as i know it begins with the deluge.