Theme: Agency

  • Those who fight Those who judge Those who choose (risk) Those who discover (rese

    Those who fight

    Those who judge

    Those who choose (risk)

    Those who discover (research)

    Those who organize ( manage )

    Those who produce

    Those who reproduce

    Those who care

    Those who are unable

    Those who are criminal

    Those who betray.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-09 10:06:00 UTC

  • THEY, AND WE SPECIALIZE… SCORPIONS ALL Women specialize in gossip and wishful

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_FrogWOMEN, THEY, AND WE SPECIALIZE… SCORPIONS ALL

    Women specialize in gossip and wishful thinking. If they did not they would abandon their stupid, ugly, ill-behaved children, and destined for outcast status, in the wood, rather than lie to themselves daily that they’re intelligent, cute, misunderstood, and destined for success.

    “They” industrialized gossip and lying to entrap others in wishful thinking. If they did not, they would have been exterminated long ago.

    We specialize in truth telling, finance, law, engineering, science. If we did not we would not have dragged ourselves and man out of ignorance, poverty, and disease.

    Do you think that Women, “They”, or We, have a choice in our specializations? Or do we follow the whispers of our genes?

    I do not hate the scorpion for stinging the frog. I understand that the frog is a fool for expecting the scorpion to act other than his nature.

    But we have committed a greater folly than the foolhardiness of the frog: we have committed the sins of arrogance and laziness.

    We assumed that we could use and domesticate the scorpion and that we were strong enough corral, contain, and armor ourselves against it.

    We were wrong.

    There is no end to the suppression of parasitism. Innovation does not constrain itself tot he good. We must be ever vigilant against parasitism by the persistent application of natural law, in manners, ethics, morals, law, institutions, and war.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-09 06:45:00 UTC

  • Sobre el chismorreo y el rechazo

    Post original de Vivek Upadhyay Traducido al Castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U. CHISMORREO El chismorreo es un medio libre de garantías y no correspondiente de mejorar el estatuí personal por medio del despliegue y la extrapolación de información seleccionada de la persona sobre la cual se chismea. Por medio del uso de declaraciones infladas, bromas, juicios impresionistas subidos de tono, etc., en un consenso compartido que con frecuencia posee un “sesgo de confirmación” a pesar de que los costos demostrables de este error, los chismosos buscan obtener algún estatus que no les corresponde y con frecuencia parasitario en relación al asunto sobre el cual se chismorrea, en parte para burlar los requerimientos altamente cognitivos de desarrollar críticas constructivas (en vez de críticas infladas y destructivas), lo cual implica valorar de manera vez los rumores de incentivos sujetos a haber dicho o hecho supuestamente imposición de costos hasta dar con la verdad o determinar si la verdad ha sido socavada. Los chismes también burlan la adecuada comparación de los antecedentes interpersonales que son transparentemente analizables, medibles, que tienen una fundamentación hecha con base a méritos, productivos, y que se les agrega valor con base a intentos (Esto comprende algunas pautas dentro de una línea de fondo que sirve para determinar si alguien es claramente una buena inversión para completar una tarde o una sucesión de tareas en relación con otros candidatos que puedan llevar a cabo la tarea designada). El chismorreo impone costos gratuitos (por lo menos) de dos maneras:

    1. Por medio de evitar conversaciones con sus interlocutores, por lo que contamina la información que se transmite a las personas con las que el chismoso se relaciona, dicha información cuando va a otros lugares  a otros lugares, se expande gradualmente fuera del alcance de sus interacciones y va disminuyendo la confianza interpersonal. Se forman interacciones sociales entre los interlocutores cuya velocidad económica interpersonal se hace susceptible.
    2. Por medio de reunir, avergonzar y eventualmente confrontar a la persona sobre la cual se chismea con una cantidad de informaciones exageradas y preguntas sesgadas a en vez de haber conseguido primero el contexto basado en incentivos sobre la persona de la cual se chismorreó y de la que aún no se sabe si esos chismes son ciertos.

    RECHAZO Rechazar es un comportamiento que impone un costo, que no logra dar una rendición de cuentas bien informada de por que una persona rechaza a alguien. Impone límites de conducta sobre el rechazado sobre los cuales éste debe operar para mantener relaciones interpersonales; estos límites no corresponden con los términos de la transacción sobre la cual el rechazado debe reforzar la interpretación cargada y no correspondiente de los eventos (aun cuando esté en consenso compartido uno con otro). Lo que alguien que rechaza administra es una prueba no explicada sin la garantía de que esa prueba valga la pena tomar: “Compórtate y habla como yo quiere o te privaré de afecto, instrucción, recursos, inversión u otras formas de capital”. No logra registrar los incentivos de cambios de comportamiento y discurso del que rechaza y por ello compromete las pruebas de realidad del rechazado a favor de sus medios intuitivos, de presionar al rechazado de apaciguar sus preferencias: Preferencias que son costosas de forma demostrable o intuitivas para el rechazado. Si alguien te rechaza, pregúntate el valor que ese alguien tiene en tu vida antes de considerar el contexto por el cual fuiste rechazado. ¿Provee quien me rechaza algo que no tenga un valor único que yo no pueda obtener en algún otro lado con un descuento (o precio comparable) entre ti y el interlocutor que no te rechaza? Confirmas que por medio de la conveniencia no intuitiva del rechazo ganas paz y  capital con el cual puedes amar y producir más para aquellos en los que confías, algo que no demuestran aquellos que te imponen esos costos al rechazarte. ¿Si? Entonces déjalos mientras compartes que estos nuevos hallazgos de valores deben continuamente incentivar el que no interactúes con ellos. Después de hacer claro esto, déjalos seguir adelante con sus proyectos. Déjalos sin ningún tipo de rencor. Asegúrate que si está en tus intereses volver a llegar a algún tipo de acuerdo con ellos, puedes hacerlo sin tener que imponer un ataque que imponga costos, es decir, una observación no basada en la crítica de las acciones, valores, creencias, virtudes o actitudes de alguien más. No inyectes costos gratuitos en tus intentos de restablecer conexiones en los cuales ambas partes pueden exclusivamente añadir valores a sus vidas, de acuerdo a los términos comunicativos y voluntarios que fueron fijados para hacer una transacción, de modo tal que eso no le imponga costos a tus amigos y familia, o elige simplemente no interactuar en una instancia particular.

  • Sometimes, with some people, you just gotta admit defeat: it just isn’t gonna wo

    Sometimes, with some people, you just gotta admit defeat: it just isn’t gonna work no matter what you do.

    You just realize that you’ve crossed that line between ease, effort, work, and futility. And that any chance of reward is beyond the investment and maintenance cost.

    Amazing thing about this planet. There are a lot of other people on it.

    Options everywhere. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-04 09:25:00 UTC

  • **But if you want to know what will make you successful in life (a) being reason

    **But if you want to know what will make you successful in life (a) being reasonably attractive, (b) placing high value on self-grooming, (c) Practicing good manners and compassion, (d) being well read, (e) being as honest as possible, and (f) having high intelligence and (g) applying intelligence and effort to produce a group advantage.***

    (from elsewhere)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-04 03:04:00 UTC

  • ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ANSWER: Well, if we call upon William of Ockham’s advice to c

    http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2016/07/cognitive-biases-ideology-control.htmlTHE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ANSWER:

    Well, if we call upon William of Ockham’s advice to criticize your psychological attribution it’s much more likely that you are engaging in selection bias, as well as rationalization, in order to justify the use of your methodology, and its measures, to produce what it is that you measure, rather than what OTHERS are measuring.

    In this case, they’re measuring the full portfolio of needs and you are not.

    So let’s look at why:

    Because your aggregates do not take into account the full cost of your recommendations: genetic, institutional, cultural capital is the most expensive investment we have made and you’re encouraging spending it in favor of increasing populations and increasing consumption despite the overwhelming empirical evidence that it doesn’t improve happiness.

    Because there are a lot of voters who intuit if they cannot fully articulate, that the cost to the family, to the civic order, to the culture, to the civilization, to history and to kin, is far higher than any incremental benefit that you can promise from increases in productivity and consumption.

    Because it has become obvious that the externalities produced by your policies have created an increasingly fragile social order that cannot survive shocks in a world in which we no longer have cultural, institutional, and technological advantages that allow our middle and upper classes and our militaries to provide asymmetric economic benefits to our working, clerical, and professional classes.

    Because it has become obvious that the business cycle theory is correct, and that each attempt we make to soften the correction merely extends this correction as well as all corrections that follow.

    Because it has become obvious that the American and European experiment have produced precisely the failure that the Chinese encountered in their post-warring-states period where the bureaucracy absorbed the professional class to a degree that the civilization increasingly stagnated.

    Because a lot of reasons.

    Now, you are resorting to what we call the rhetorical fallacy of “psychologism” which is the modern equivalent of the theological prohibition on sin, and nothing more.

    People act in their rational self-interest, but their rational self-interest beyond a certain limited scope, is to preserve their status, family, and culture in contrast to other families and cultures.

    The right (aristocratic) philosophy of the west is reducible to the Anglo-Saxon Bipartite Manorial mandate to produce great families as the central unit of policy, production, and reproduction.

    The left (underclass) philosophy of the counter-empirical-enlightenment, is reducible to the attempt to remove the eugenic advantage of good families and to raise ‘bad’ families to equal footing.

    Apparently, left-leaning economists do not study the consequences of Islamic expansion and slave trade on the civilization after 1100, and the decline of the near east and north Africa as a consequence.

    So it is that people correctly intuit that their “portfolio of capital” is no longer being benefitted by leftist expansion. It is one thing to provide reciprocal insurance to near kin with shared history, and another to consume genetic, institutional, cultural, and historical capital for the sake of increasing consumption that has no material impact and merely returns our cities into medieval ghettos, and modern favelas.

    When we just spent over thirteen hundred years trying to reverse those possibiliites where all other civilizations in human history have failed.

    That is why.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 11:48:00 UTC

  • MESSIANIC MISSIONS AND HUMAN USURY (diary)(very personal) Working on my personal

    MESSIANIC MISSIONS AND HUMAN USURY

    (diary)(very personal)

    Working on my personal reformation still, and I think I have found the issue, and it’s much more obvious in retrospect than I thought.

    The problem with heroic (messianic) missions, and in general, missions beyond what is comprehensible to others, or programs in which others may play some partial role without understanding that the greater purpose is beyond their grasp, is that it is increasingly easy to ‘use’ people if for no other reason than it is not possible to engage in reciprocal information nor intent.

    Now, not only have I been on this messianic mission since my first blushes with self-agency at the age of twelve, but I also lack many social fears, and I lack a great deal of ordinary empathy. Not because I lack feelings – just the opposite. I am overwhelmed by them.

    My mission has consumed my life – and framed my thinking so much so that I have lost sight of the alternatives normal people follow.

    Prior to my divorce, one of the women I worked with called me a sociopath – which I took as feminist psychologism and shaming. The modern equivalent of calling people sinful if they do not conform to dogma. But when we got divorced – and my cancer had returned – my wife accused me of the same. Which seemed very odd to me, so I started seeing a therapist to discover if it was true – divorces are disoriented for most of us and for me it was especially so. And of course, I have none of the markers of sociopath, just the opposite. Which is possible to see in my philosophical work quite clearly. I love people, and I hate disapproval or suffering.

    But it was not until this period of introspection that I understood that for almost all my adult life, and certainly since my first bout of cancer in 2001 increased my sense of urgency so dramatically, I have treated people as little more than resources that are necessary for the fulfillment of what I see as my mission – and a mission that I see as of profound importance for my people.

    The second bout with cancer in ’09 dramatically accelerated my feeling of pressure – that I must act – and by October of 2012 when I came to Kiev, after another hospitalization in August, I felt the weight on my subconscious so heavily I am not sure there was much of my identity left beyond it. I remember feeling like an automaton. And it was not long after that I took the ‘early’ strategy of attacking libertarianism in order to accelerate my learning, and raise awareness of my work, so that I could start to build a body of people able to use these ideas in argument in favor of the western tradition.

    Now, a good enough psychologist – or me as the Propertarian equivalent – might say that as a young person with mild Asperger’s growing up in a violent and chaotic home, experiencing the tragedy of the 1960s, while at the same time digesting encyclopedias in the western tradition, that I chose this mission as a means of making life tolerable, and under my control, rather than the control of, or opinion of others. And I would agree. But that causal connection doesn’t change the fact my work is pretty revolutionary and that I have succeeded in producing the missing philosophy of the west that so many authors have struggled to codify in the post-mystical era we call the enlightenment.

    Now, to some degree, the number of people I can treat as fully informed peers is very limited. I am in a position in life that many prior revolutionary thinkers have been in – feeling somewhat alone. And I have this entirely ingrained paternalism wherein I consider almost everyone childlike, but love them all anyway.

    But, just as when you look to your parents and realize that you have outgrown them, and are confronted with the fear of it, or your teachers, or your mentors, or your career peers, or all your friends – one feels the weight of having no one to turn to but books – and thankfully, in our era, the internet. So I cannot hope to treat people as peers.

    In my work on ethics, I have described this gray area, wherein I try to illustrate that if there are moral and legal norms, you can adhere to them while still taking advantage of people. This is one of my criticisms of parasitic groups.

    But there is also the inverse gray area, wherein a man with greater knowledge may choose not to act according to moral and legal norms, with full belief that he acts morally anyway because the circumstance is sufficiently under his control that the benefit for the group mandates that he act unconventionally. And if he succeeds, then he is a genius of profound character, and if he fails he is a fool and a scoundrel. Whereas, had he obeyed moral norms, even if that meant dramatically increasing the chance of failure, whether he succeeded or failed would have produced the same positive judgment of him either way.

    Now to use people doesn’t mean to harm them. It means the external value that they associate with the relationship differs from normative expectations. In reality, if you live entirely for a mission, then what value do most people have other than to the mission? So if the mission changes, or we are no longer in pursuit of it, then the value of people changes as well. Because one can have people who add value to the mission when that mission that is not shared, or we can have a mission that adds value to the people which is shared.

    So. I use people. I used people. I have used everyone and everything at my disposal for many years – most of my life. Most of which helped buy me time to work on my mission. I have built companies for no other purpose than to provide me funding to work on my mission, sought work where I had the headspace to work on my mission, associated with people for the sole purpose of advancing my mission. And in practical terms, that seems like all I have done.

    And after my spate of illnesses, I developed a sense of urgency that took me to near total disregard of others, outside of normal human friendship.

    And that appears to be why I am here and now in this here and now.

    So that was a much harder discovery process than I expected, and I am not sure that I understand what it means fully yet, but at least, by focusing on getting rest, I understand my actions in retrospect.

    Minds are interesting things.

    I feel much more a rider on the elephant the older I get, and the more I udnerstand that our agency is much more limited than our egos can admit.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 10:50:00 UTC

  • A man can but wish for a good death. 🙂 BTW: I make no claims to righteousness.

    A man can but wish for a good death. 🙂 BTW: I make no claims to righteousness. Only to your (collective) lack of ideas.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-03 06:44:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749494015633068033

    Reply addressees: @JohnRebel14

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749273957258387456


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/749273957258387456

  • lol… ok. well, I don’t think it’s a matter of ‘smart’ but of thinking it throu

    lol… ok. well, I don’t think it’s a matter of ‘smart’ but of thinking it through, and emotional detachment.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-01 14:22:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/748884416269787136

    Reply addressees: @JohnRebel14 @Lead_Farmer7

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/748877923457896448


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/748877923457896448

  • You know, just because you CAN fix a company, doesn’t mean the people WANT it fi

    You know, just because you CAN fix a company, doesn’t mean the people WANT it fixed; or that it’s worth fixing; or its rewarding to fix it.

    Three bad days.

    Is it worth your time? Opportunity costs.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-30 14:08:00 UTC