Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Wealth Causes Genders to Specialize Not Compromise

    —”Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations (N = 17,637). On responses to the Big Five Inventory, women reported higher levels of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than did men across most nations. These findings converge with previous studies in which different Big Five measures and more limited samples of nations were used. Overall, higher levels of human development–including long and healthy life, equal access to knowledge and education, and economic wealth–were the main nation-level predictors of larger sex differences in personality. Changes in men’s personality traits appeared to be the primary cause of sex difference variation across cultures. It is proposed that heightened levels of sexual dimorphism result from personality traits of men and women being less constrained and more able to naturally diverge in developed nations. In less fortunate social and economic conditions, innate personality differences between men and women may be attenuated.”—

    PMID: 18179326 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168

  • Wealth Causes Genders to Specialize Not Compromise

    —”Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations (N = 17,637). On responses to the Big Five Inventory, women reported higher levels of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than did men across most nations. These findings converge with previous studies in which different Big Five measures and more limited samples of nations were used. Overall, higher levels of human development–including long and healthy life, equal access to knowledge and education, and economic wealth–were the main nation-level predictors of larger sex differences in personality. Changes in men’s personality traits appeared to be the primary cause of sex difference variation across cultures. It is proposed that heightened levels of sexual dimorphism result from personality traits of men and women being less constrained and more able to naturally diverge in developed nations. In less fortunate social and economic conditions, innate personality differences between men and women may be attenuated.”—

    PMID: 18179326 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168

  • Responding to Disgust

    Responding to Disgust https://t.co/f7f2KY9nkj

  • Responding to Disgust

    Nov 23, 2019, 12:44 PM RESPONDING TO DISGUST by Luke Weinhagen Responding to disgust – First we ignore it Until we can’t Then we isolate it from us Until we can’t Then we isolate ourselves from it Until we can’t Then we try to correct it Until we can’t Then we try to accept it Until we can’t Then we can’t, so we don’t (Exhaustive pathological forbearance is to our masculine as pathological altruism is to our feminine – vulnerabilities who’s healthy forms serve our in-group well but expose us to exploitation by parasites in their unhealthy expression)

  • Responding to Disgust

    Nov 23, 2019, 12:44 PM RESPONDING TO DISGUST by Luke Weinhagen Responding to disgust – First we ignore it Until we can’t Then we isolate it from us Until we can’t Then we isolate ourselves from it Until we can’t Then we try to correct it Until we can’t Then we try to accept it Until we can’t Then we can’t, so we don’t (Exhaustive pathological forbearance is to our masculine as pathological altruism is to our feminine – vulnerabilities who’s healthy forms serve our in-group well but expose us to exploitation by parasites in their unhealthy expression)

  • Love is very simple to explain…

    Love is very simple to explain… https://t.co/kfQ2Zd9RcC

  • Love is very simple to explain…

    Nov 23, 2019, 8:34 PM by Joseph E. Postma Love is very simple to explain… For a woman, you get the feeling of love where there is the possibility of a nest. For a man, you get the feeling of love where there is the possibility of fertility. Love is THAT simple. It’s a nice feeling…but it’s very mechanical in fact, and very simple. It’s more or less rational when you have a male and female of roughly equal marketability and roughly equally-limited supply, i.e., in a healthy community. Then you get good families and roughly good marriages. A female nests, a male inseminates. Rich men give the proposition of unlimited nesting, hence they are given unlimited supply. Young attractive (healthy) women give the proposition of unlimited inseminating, hence they are given unlimited offer. In these bounds are marketability and also disposability. At the boundaries, you get insanity of course and nothing rational at all. Unlimited supply on one hand, and zero on the other. It’s simply about what leads to, what has the potential to lead to, successful reproduction…which is what genes want. A woman has every right to value the potential to nest from her partner (agency, wealth, resources), as a man has every right to value the potential of fertility (young, healthy, attractive).

  • Love is very simple to explain…

    Nov 23, 2019, 8:34 PM by Joseph E. Postma Love is very simple to explain… For a woman, you get the feeling of love where there is the possibility of a nest. For a man, you get the feeling of love where there is the possibility of fertility. Love is THAT simple. It’s a nice feeling…but it’s very mechanical in fact, and very simple. It’s more or less rational when you have a male and female of roughly equal marketability and roughly equally-limited supply, i.e., in a healthy community. Then you get good families and roughly good marriages. A female nests, a male inseminates. Rich men give the proposition of unlimited nesting, hence they are given unlimited supply. Young attractive (healthy) women give the proposition of unlimited inseminating, hence they are given unlimited offer. In these bounds are marketability and also disposability. At the boundaries, you get insanity of course and nothing rational at all. Unlimited supply on one hand, and zero on the other. It’s simply about what leads to, what has the potential to lead to, successful reproduction…which is what genes want. A woman has every right to value the potential to nest from her partner (agency, wealth, resources), as a man has every right to value the potential of fertility (young, healthy, attractive).

  • There are 3 major competing ideas of rationality/irrationality in economic theor

    There are 3 major competing ideas of rationality/irrationality in economic theory. https://t.co/JQ7qklS1Kh

  • There are 3 major competing ideas of rationality/irrationality in economic theory.

    There are 3 major competing ideas of rationality/irrationality in economic theory.

    1. Mostly applied by neo-classical economists which assumes rational actors are at play. That people when they have access to information required to make what is deemed a ‘rational’ choice will pursue their own interests and act accordingly, and of paramount importance to all their fancy math is that they will act predictably, and this view of homo-economicus is absolutely necessary for the type of planning that most mainstream economists like to engage in. It of course also provides an endless justification for their own profession. There is only marginal utility in this view and what it occasionally gets right is just that in some cases, the value judgments of the economists line up with the aggregate effects created by the value judgments of the actors in question making real world decisions.
    2. Mostly applied by behavioral economists, is the observation that people in fact do not always act rationally. That people are full of ‘biases’ and do not act in predictable ways. Although this often still leads to many trying to seek top down control of society to direct people to make decisions that are in their own purported best interests as determined by the behavioral economists who have created a laundry list of hundreds of alleged cognitive defects. The challenge with this theory is that the values of the economists are again externally placed onto the actors in question. And when people choose bad methods to achieve their stated goal they are by default labelled as ‘irrational’, or stated to be seeking the wrong goals due to what they label as ‘cognitive biases’. This is in fact, a fallacy on its own because its predicated on a false axiom that people are either irrational or rational in working towards their goals. What I like about the behavioral economists is that they are of course thinking critically and rightfully of the above view of the classical economists and showing that obviously people do not act in a perfectly predictable manner. Daniel Kahneman would be the most popular person of this general view, a brilliant statistician.

    3. A very uncommon outlook is one that I think is the most consistent view of human behavior in economics to date, and its fairly old. The origin of this line of thought begins with Mises not only a great economist but a very original sociologist and liberal philosopher who produced a lot of material that I very much recommend reading. All conscious human action is purposeful, and since all purposeful, conscious action requires thought before execution all such manner of human behavior is inherently a product of rationality. It cannot be irrational by our very nature. Irrationality is reserved for the unconscious un-thinking reaction to stimuli. But such irrational behavior lasts for moments, it does not make economic decisions for us. Thinking of all human behavior as purposeful and inherently rational simply means that one must adopt a radical subjectivist approach to human values, following the subjective theory of value as developed by Carl Menger. The apparent ‘irrationality’ as described by behaviorists can only be labelled as such by inflicting external values on the actors being observed, and we are unaware of the values of the actors. When someone is choosing methods ill advised for their own stated goals these goals can be independent of time preference and other values which are not available for the observer to see. Not all people are as good at pursuing their goals, not all people are as intelligent or logical as one another, not all people choose efficient methods and this too is a result of values. To state such apparent failings of individuals to achieve their ends as simply ‘irrational’ is a very anti-human view. The idea that 3rd party observers know better than others is to disregard the values of the actors at play and is therefore a fallacy which is inherently conducive to top down planning of the lives of such people who we think, ought to be adopting our own values. All humans are rational, its what makes us human.

    A side note about Menger’s Theory of Subjective Value is that it has never been refuted, and so convincing in fact that Marx even read Menger in his later days and stopped writing because he basically knew he was wrong on his labor theory of value which was borrowed from the classical economists.