Read sapolsky’s book this afternoon. Like I said. He’s not talking about free will. Sigh. Thanks for adding confusion to the matter.
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-24 20:27:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716914233013874896
Read sapolsky’s book this afternoon. Like I said. He’s not talking about free will. Sigh. Thanks for adding confusion to the matter.
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-24 20:27:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716914233013874896
AA: Only about ten percent of humans ‘think’ in the sense we mean it. Even then, the vast majority of people are bots. They are not only paradigm machines, and tradition-machines, and metaphysics-machines, but also gene machines. They do in fact believe what they are doing is good, right, just, best – they’re just wrong. And wrong almost all the time. (Look at the history of western philosophy for people trying to do it right but getting it wrong. That’s why philosophy is a mixed bag.)
I focus on fixing the issue. And I just use the science on one hand and the law on the other.
It’s very hard to solve problems when we work in a mode of accusation, blame, and offense, instead of just putting in place the institutional plumbing that prevents the irreciprocities people seek to impose by their justifications.
Reply addressees: @NWEurasian @GadSaad
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-24 14:25:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716823234719719424
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716821647012089881
Gad;
Saddened by your feelings because you’re one of the men whose character I admire most in this world. You maintain love of people and life, courage to pursue the good, and a positivity that is delightfully contageous.
I would love to discuss this with you at some point. Because I think the problem can be solved, but It cannot be solved without reforms on both sides.
In the west, as the Rabbi’s have said over and over again “Do not interfere in their ways”. And secondly, the west has a hole in it’s laws that allow “interference in our ways” despite that we do not ourselves any more than do other peoples, understand ‘our ways’.
There is also a rather vast moral difference between the cultures when it comes to matters of the commons. And this results in specialization in different domains which are in opposition because of this difference.
There is a reason for the fragility but durability of the jewish people over time, and a reason for the strength but vulnerability of the european people. And it is our responsibilty for producing responsibility for the commons, and our differences in the acceptability of behavior that impacts our responsibility for the commons.
These are ancient traditions from both peoples that are metaphysical (meaning indirectly habituated in our cognitive processes rather than explicitly stated).
That doesn’t mean they can’t be said explicitly and we can’t create intentional or procedural reforms so that we can both correct them.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @GadSaad
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-24 14:09:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716819221060239361
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716674531375333538
–“Q: Curt: What Feminized Society? “–
It’s not complicated really – if you understand female instinct. Feminization consists of responsibilty evasion. It’s that simple.
What feminized society? (a) giving women the vote without a separate house of government for women that would preserve the multiple houses of government as a market for trades between classes – and then sexes. (b) the neomarxist march throug our institutions, (c) the pill and abortion (d) divorce laws (divorce r*pe), (e) women in the ‘clerical’ workplace while men’s material work was shipped overseas (f) women consuming 70% of government resources, spending 70% of household income, and funding 90% of left wing course material in university to indoctrinate them (g) women’s natural tendency to hyperconsume while evading all responsibilty for any aspect of the commons, and as such incrementally voting in favor of authority and parasitism that allows them to allow others as well, avoid responsibilty for everything from self regulation of emotions to preservation of truth before face, to policing and teaching responsibility for all, to all.
That’s the correct and nearly complete answer. There is a foolish tendency on the Right to try to identify one simple cause so that they can rally people to a simple solution – but that’s false. Hard problems are hard because of multi-causality creating causal density requiring a substantial sequence of reforms to overcome.
Cheers.
Reply addressees: @BOB37702515
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-24 14:00:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716816884539199488
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716814460676112667
Of course you aren’t. That’s the difference between the cognition of the sexes. Short term empathizing of the feminine, vs long term systematizing of the masculine. You’re literally color blind to time space and population.
Which you’d know if you had any understanding of…
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-24 03:11:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716653599126598126
Reply addressees: @heliarc @Reem_AlHarmi @mbeisen @ZaidJilani @eLife @TheOnion
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716653103527968923
SAPOLSKY’S BOOK ISN”T ABOUT FREE WILL BUT WORLD VIEW.
RE: @Robot_Sapolsky #Determined
The better reviews are correctly uncharitable so far. But it’s because it’s the book is not in fact about the philosophical question of ‘free will’ which asks only whether we have the capacity to choose between moral and immoral actions. That’s all the ‘free will’ debate asks. And yes we do have it. Which is why we hold one another accountable for our actions throughout mankind and throughout history. The book instead is about our World View (model) within which we exercise the free will to make moral decisions.
If I find a day to read this book through, I”ll write a solid review. But I can tell from the interviews already that he’s spewing nonsense about FREE WILL, even if he is trying to demonstrate how heavily our WORLD VIEW and therefore thoughts, words, and deeds within it, are affected by our body form, its limitations, our brain and its limitations, and the universe that we live in.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @badoer77
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-24 02:04:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716636765480423424
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716621679529455866
–“Nearly all of your political or philosophical views are manifestations of your selfish genes.”–
Yes. But what responsibilty are you trying to bear for yourself and for that of others. What responsibilty are you asking others to bear for themselves and others. And what responsibilty are others seeking to evade?
You will find that the right seeks responsibilty (male) and the left seeks irresponsibility (female). And that there is nothing else to be understood other than those who seek irresponsibilty, seek to cause those who seek responsibilty to pay for them and their irresponsibilities.
Then you will come to the coclusion that while there is overlap in the behavior of the sexes, with some cognitively and morally feminine males, and masculine females, that by and large the crisis of the age is the introduction of women into the polity and economy given their universal evasion of responsibility for the commons.
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-24 00:02:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716606053813465088
All Selection is Individual – But individuals do demonstrate selection as groups. A word game.
I have this argument with Jayman (@JayMan471) because the ambiguity is causing unnecessary nonsense.
It’s the only thing I’ve ever disagreed with him on. And that’s because (a) by the terms used in the field all selection is individual – no other selection exists: ie there is no group selection.
However (b) this is a word game. All selection happens at
the individual but humans are both extremely sexually adaptive (sheep, goats, horses, holes in things, anything), status seeking and predictive based on all sorts of criteria. Meaning that groups DO select by criteria even if within the group all individuals are selecting by that criteria.
Neoteny is the most pervasive critiera, is highly selected for in women, and eventually spreads to men.
Small isolated groups tend to demontrate more selection and variation. Groups with lots of neighbors have a harder time. Why? Because while you need about 1500 for healthy falsification of bad mutations, you also neeed to keep that number small enough to allow the spread of positive selection.,
Reply addressees: @f_quiver
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-22 21:39:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716207736273125376
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1716200409105350960
all that changed was giving the ‘little people’ a means of achieving virtue by doing no wrong and caring for one another, despite having no ability, skill, land, wealth, military prowess, or political power – as a ‘slave revolt’ against the manipulative, the wealthy, and the aristocracy. In other words, Jesus taught them to rebel against the powerful by effectiely behaving in away that the wealthy wanted, and not allowing the wealthy and powerful to divide them.
Reply addressees: @taiwtaiwb8 @VinnytheCrow
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-21 17:03:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1715775870214832129
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1715764394640941403
WHY NATIONAL IQ REALLY REALLY MATTERS
But my point is this: the ‘smart fraction’ makes all the difference for every country. It’s pretty much all that matters. So the average IQ makes a lot of difference.
There are twice as many smart european-americans than there are Indians… https://twitter.com/d4n_m4d3r1a/status/1715393872556417508
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-20 15:53:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1715395921406562688