Theme: Agency

  • CULTURAL HUMOR (SANITIZED) My opinion: Ukrainian women are the not only the most

    CULTURAL HUMOR (SANITIZED)

    My opinion: Ukrainian women are the not only the most beautiful, but the most elegant and noble women in the world. Femininity is power. It is a power we men don’t have. This list doesn’t do the difference justice. It’s from a guy who wrote a book traveling here. But it’s a crass and humorous illustration of what is really a profound, gracious and elegant difference.

    American girl: “What do you do?”

    Ukrainian girl: “Why are you in Ukraine?”

    American: Asks you to buy a drink

    Ukrainian: Expects you to buy a drink

    American: Flip flops because they’re comfortable

    Ukrainian: High heels because men like them

    American: 20 pounds overweight

    Ukrainian: 5 pounds underweight

    American: Looking for a stable career

    Ukrainian: Looking for a stable husband

    American: Won’t shut up

    Ukrainian: Won’t open up

    American: Hates makeup

    Ukrainian: Qualified to be a makeup artist

    American: Obsessed with celebrities

    Ukrainian: Obsessed with money

    American: Knows how to heat chicken nuggets

    Ukrainian: Knows how to cook meals passed on from her grandmother

    American: Pretends to be a porn star in bed

    Ukrainian: Pretends to be a virgin in bed

    American: Complains there are no good men

    Ukrainian: Complains you didn’t buy her flowers

    American: Feels uncomfortable with silence

    Ukrainian: Feels uncomfortable with too much chatter

    American: Treats you like a coworker

    Ukrainian: Treats you like the master of her life

    American: Relationship gets worse after first sex

    Ukrainian: Relationship gets better after first sex

    American: Never traveled but thinks she knows the world

    Ukrainian: Never traveled and insecure about it

    American: Obsessed with Apple

    Ukrainian: Obsessed with Apple

    American: Goes to supermarket in pajamas

    Ukrainian: Goes to supermarket in mini skirt

    American: Dresses like a bum even though she has money

    Ukrainian: Dresses flashy even though she has no money

    American: Sees men as misogynists who have institutional privilege

    Ukrainian: Sees men as a bridge to a better life

    American: Will believe anything you tell them

    Ukrainian: Human lie detector

    American: Pretend she’s strong and independent

    Ukrainian: Knows she’s fragile and weak

    American: Brags about dating multiple guys at the same time

    Ukrainian: Brags about gifts that rich men bought her

    American: Thinks lawyer are boring

    Ukrainian: Thinks lawyers are accomplished men worthy of marriage

    American: Goes out twice a week to clubs to get attention from men

    Ukrainian: Goes out only once a month because she can’t afford it

    American: Thinks casual sex and free birth control are essential to being happy

    Ukrainian: Things marriage is essential to being happy

    American: Fucks a guy who can make her vagina wet

    Ukrainian: Fucks a guy who can improve her life in some way

    American: Expert at taking webcam shots from magic angles

    Ukrainian: Expert at posing sexy for photos in ugly park

    American: Ideal man has to be witty, spontaneous, and interesting, with stand-up comedian level of humor

    Ukrainian: Doesn’t care about a man’s personality as long as he has money


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-07 08:57:00 UTC

  • ARTICLE: DOGS SHARE OUR EMOTIONS Which is pretty obvious really. They’re more li

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/dogs-are-people-too.html?pagewanted=allGREAT ARTICLE: DOGS SHARE OUR EMOTIONS

    Which is pretty obvious really. They’re more like us than most primates.

    Now, the author makes the assertion that personhood, and rights are properties of sentience. And I am not sure that I agree with that. Rights are a property of cooperation, not emotional or intellectual presence.

    We show compassion to other creatures. We show compassion to children. But we do not give children ‘rights’. They can’t make use of them. Nor can they understand them. Likewise, any human that would demonstrate a lack of compassion to a child, a dog, or a goat for that matter, is a threat to the rest of us either materially or normatively. Our ‘do not unto others’, rule (the silver rule) cannot be broken with any sentient creature, because it cannot be a choice. This is a normative, moral, requirement. Not a legal one. So it is not that animals have rights. It is that humans have duties of care. We regulate humans, because we can. And we punish humans because we can.

    We cannot go around throwing the term ‘right’ around as comfortably as liberals tend to. A right is a contractual property of voluntary exchange. An obligation is a property of a contract of voluntary exchange. A duty is an obligation that is part of the human contract for acceptance into any society. It is a tax. A fee. An insurance policy. Your personal commitment that you are safe to have and hold for the rest of us, and capable of having ‘rights’ by voluntary exchange.

    If you cannot hold your duties of care, then you are a threat not only to children and animals, but to the rest of us as well.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 16:17:00 UTC

  • ECONOMIC THINKING TRUMPS PSYCHOLOGIZING All emotions are changes in state of pro

    ECONOMIC THINKING TRUMPS PSYCHOLOGIZING

    All emotions are changes in state of property. By describing actions rather than their effects, we can clearly understand what is occurring in any interaction.

    Praxeology allows us to test incentives. But if we understand the full spectrum of what people treat as their property, we can use praxeology to understand precisely what voluntary and involuntary transfers are going on, and when emotions are used to lie in order to force an involuntary transfer.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 11:07:00 UTC

  • CONSERVATIVE ATTACK ON THE “ASPERGERY”: (More in my series on SOLIPSISM VS AUTIS

    CONSERVATIVE ATTACK ON THE “ASPERGERY”:

    (More in my series on SOLIPSISM VS AUTISM: Political correctness vs unloaded contrarian facts.)

    Solipsistic – Autistic Spectrum

    SOLIPSISTIC-SENSITIVE-SOCIAL-BALANCED-NERDY-ASPIE-AUTISTIC

    “In general, we’re seeing an ongoing convergence between the bad intellectual habits of two groups that are powerfully represented in Internet discussions: the politically correct and the Aspergery. The former dislike pattern recognition and the latter love mechanistic computer-programming style reasoning. And they increasingly come together to try to shut down probabilistic thinking about human behavior.” – iSteve

    Now, this is a really interesting topic: The Economics of Subjective Experience vs Objective Truth.

    NOTES:

    1) Notice how the commenters confuse relying upon intuition as ‘reason’.

    2) There is a definite anti-intellectual trend in conservatism that is not present in libertarianism. This is probably another artifact of IQ distributions, as well as Solipsistic-Autistic distributions.

    3) The aspie learning model is to observe, take a position, argue and learn from it. This is different from an emotionally laden dialog between individuals which would be ‘muddy’ to aspies. The autistic model is to adhere to a particular idea regardless. As is the Solipsistic (Politically correct) model.

    4) Yes, the Dark Enlightenment is the product of Aspies. As are a lot of innovations. Normal people don’t obsess over details like we do. It is extermely expensive and difficult to obsess on causal relations.

    5) There are plenty of Aspies that place infinite discount on emotional constructs just as there are plenty of Sensitives that place infinite premiums on experiences (emotions). There are plenty of normals who are oblivious. 🙂

    6) Yes, Autists are often mechanistic, just as solipsists are politically correct. After all, to be politically correct is to place a premium on experience and a discount on truth. To be mechanistic is to place a premium on truth and a discount on experience.

    7) Aspies are leery of emotional motivation and express incentives and require incentives be expressed as rational actions. This troubles conservatives who rely on emotional activation resulting from intuition.

    SELECTED COMMENTS (Fascinating Thread)

    ——————————

    For me, the most interesting part of this post is the last paragraph. I’ve been looking for a way to describe this for a while but without luck. Steve, I think you nailed it with the “convergence between the bad intellectual habits of…the politically correct and the Aspergery.”

    In many instances, no convergence was necessary–they were already one in the same.

    ——-

    …The Aspergery are subject to computer-thinking; in the digital world, everything is a 1 or a 0, it is on or it is off. As for the politically correct, John Derbyshire got it right when he called them “Totalists”. There is no room, for example, to not like homosexuals (or blacks, or immigrants) very much, but to neither wish them any harm – one must either gush endlessly about them, or one clearly wishes to destroy them. No room for subtlety in either worldview.



    Understanding this point – that something that is generally true has some circumstances in which it is not – is something that PCs and Aspys have trouble with for three reasons. First, it is not Totalist. Second, it is not binary. Third, it takes genuine intelligence to understand, and PCs and Aspys tend to substitute snark and smarm for genuine intelligence, in their own version of “fake it till you make it”.

    ——-

    We live in an age in which the darling of the world economy is the tech business. This is a business in which success comes from having a certain kind of smartness that is different from intelligence in general – that borderline autistic, unsubtle, binary-oriented, goal-obsessive, kind of smart that’s most often seen in high-performance geeks. This seems to go hand-in-hand not only with bad social skills, but with some mild level of genuine sociopathy – ask anyone who ever knew Steve Jobs personally about how he treated people close to him for an example of that.

    In truth, Jobs, and Zuckerberg, and a lot of other tech-industry titans, are almost certainly high-functioning autistics who are too successful for anyone to dare call them dysfunctional.

    And -this is key – because the tech sector is so important, these people are the ones who have become heroes and role models, with people brought up to believe that their kind of smart was the best – maybe the only genuine – kind of smart. People love to copy a winner, and when a certain skill set or kind of smartness of way of thinking seems to be successful, people aspire to it and try to emulate it (or at least put on an affectation of it).

    This is one major reason why the internet – and life – is infested with tinhorn Aspys and dime-store Dawkinses.

    ——–

    CURT: Actually, it’s because aspies are infovores. They require high amounts of stimulation via information that they cannot obtain by interaction.

    What I find interesting is that this person isn’t terribly bright and he’s just railing against others with envy. When his real objection is that he can’t use moralistic argument to convince shame or guilt people into agreeing with him. How do I know that? Praxeology. The economy of persuasion.

    ——–

    this is silly….. i dont expect this sort of intellectual sloppiness from someone of your calibre. Half the commenters here are probably aspergery, I am more than certain most of the “Dark Englightenment” is a product of Aspergery thinking. PC and Asperger’s are poles apart on any spectrum of intellectual functioning. One refuses to see patterns, one sees patterns all the time. One is feminine thinking to the extreme, one is masculine thinking to the extreme.

    ——–

    “In addition to not being solid on probabilistic reasoning, software types are not trained to reason about causation.”

    Not so, just the opposite. Software types live in a world where one debugs complex systems by probabilistic reasoning. Debugging programming logic, in programs of any size, is all about reasoning about causation.

    Though some variation of what you say might be true if you modify it to be probabilistic reasoning or causation about human “systems” (society), in particular if the reasoning needs to take into account current, historical, and political social conditions at all scales. Many programming types, particularly those locked in “deathmarch” race-to-deadlines, simply don’t have time to keep up with these things. Something has to give, the task becomes all-consuming, stress and pressure wonderfully concentrates the mind. A hard problem that takes months to solve does warp the human personality trying to solve it. Don’t overlook the simple lack of time in producing aspy-type behavior.

    ——–

    Anonymous said…

    “…the politically correct and the Aspergery. In many instances, no convergence was necessary–they were already one in the same.”

    I disagree… the PCs aren’t smart enough to be Aspies.

    ——–

    Anonymous said…

    Some people with Aspergers are aware that neurotypicals exist and that they think is some really weird ways.

    Those people come around to the Dark Enlightenment once they become sufficiently disillusioned.

    Other people with Aspergers seem to be unable to grasp the simple fact that neurotypicals exist, even when it is explained to them over and over.

    When those people become economists, watch out.

    ———

    Anonymous NOTA said…

    Reasoning about probabilities and statistics is really unnatural and hard for most people to do. Reasoning toward an unwanted conclusion is also unnatural and hard for people to do well. The combination is presumably still harder, and I suspect this is one reason why statistical reasoning dealing with some unwanted conclusion is super hard for even most smart people to think through.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 08:30:00 UTC

  • DRAW A PERFECT CIRCLE Make a few million. Lose a few million. The difference is

    DRAW A PERFECT CIRCLE

    Make a few million. Lose a few million. The difference is just zeros. Sigh. It’s knowing how easy it is to make millions that matters. It’s just work.

    Draw a perfect circle.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-02 17:01:00 UTC

  • Why do I love competition, fighting and war so much, yet despise interpersonal c

    Why do I love competition, fighting and war so much, yet despise interpersonal conflict? I don’t understand it. Weird. But I get to go to war on a big business issue this week and it thrills me no end. 🙂 The more zeros the better. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-02 13:31:00 UTC

  • Can Atheists Fall In Love? If An Atheist Does Not Believe In God Because They Need Proof, Can They Fall In Love (which Presumably Also Cannot Be Proven)? And If So, How Do They Know?

    THE QUESTION IS A PARLOR TRICK BUT I WILL TRY TO DO IT JUSTICE – MORE JUSTICE THAN IT DESERVES. 🙂

    OBSERVABLE TYPES OF LOVE
    As far as we know, humans demonstrate these kinds of love, from the most intense to the least intense.

    1) Erotic love ( sexual attraction with the potential of joining the family)
    2) Familial Love ( members of the family – decreasing with genetic distance)
    3) Friendship Love ( treat as family even though not )
    4) “Christian Love” ( Treat as family for social and economic purposes. More recently referred to as “unconditional love”.  But which, at least, biologically and scientifically, means the extension of ‘familial love’ outside of one’s children.)

    The success of the theistic religions has been to create conditions by which familial trust (love) is extended to non family members.  THis allows social and economic cooperation at scale. It is an interesting ‘trick’. A very useful device. It was very successful at uniting (poor) tribes into larger national and cultural units with similar ethical, moral, and legal codes.  WHile we may argue that the allegorical and magical nature of most religions is logically absurd, it is not necessarily illogical that religion has been demonstrated to be the most successful means by which to aggregate people into common ethical, moral and legal structures.

    THE HIGH TRUST SOCIETY
    The west achieved it’s High Trust Society status by forbidding cousin marriage out to six, eight or even ten generations, and extending property rights to women. By those two acts, over time, in fact, all people within a region were either near genetic relations, or had the possibility of becoming near genetic relations.

    THE FAILURE OF THE RELIGIONS
    This is why the west was more successful than any other culture at extending not just ‘love’ but property rights and economic cooperation to all members of the community.  Other societies may have succeeded in extending interpersonal treatment of others beyond family boundaries, but they were unsuccessful at extending property rights away from the paternal family or the totalitarian state.  Because of this, other ‘religious love’ actually was destructive to the economic, social, legal, and political development of those countries. It prohibited rather than encouraged a division of labor into specialization, and the concentration and coordination of capital into the production of consumer goods..

    THE FAILURE OF SECULAR HUMANISM
    Secular humanism, or Totalitarian Humanism, like it’s ancestors Postmodernism, Scientific Socialism, Socialism, Marxism, Christianity, and Judaism, attempts to regress western civilization’s emphasis on private property and public actions by returning us to totalitarian management of property as a commons, and forcible rather than voluntary charity.

    THE SHORTAGE OF USEFUL ‘RELIGIONS’ (Myths and Rituals)
    Religions can work if they support production and private property as did protestantism.  The problem is that only greek and german hero-worship and perhaps Shinto, other than protestantism, are compatible with the retention of property rights and individualism.  The American Constitution, the English Common Law,

    But then, this is one of the great problems of human history and we barely understand it.

    https://www.quora.com/Can-atheists-fall-in-love-If-an-atheist-does-not-believe-in-God-because-they-need-proof-can-they-fall-in-love-which-presumably-also-cannot-be-proven-And-if-so-how-do-they-know

  • Can Atheists Fall In Love? If An Atheist Does Not Believe In God Because They Need Proof, Can They Fall In Love (which Presumably Also Cannot Be Proven)? And If So, How Do They Know?

    THE QUESTION IS A PARLOR TRICK BUT I WILL TRY TO DO IT JUSTICE – MORE JUSTICE THAN IT DESERVES. 🙂

    OBSERVABLE TYPES OF LOVE
    As far as we know, humans demonstrate these kinds of love, from the most intense to the least intense.

    1) Erotic love ( sexual attraction with the potential of joining the family)
    2) Familial Love ( members of the family – decreasing with genetic distance)
    3) Friendship Love ( treat as family even though not )
    4) “Christian Love” ( Treat as family for social and economic purposes. More recently referred to as “unconditional love”.  But which, at least, biologically and scientifically, means the extension of ‘familial love’ outside of one’s children.)

    The success of the theistic religions has been to create conditions by which familial trust (love) is extended to non family members.  THis allows social and economic cooperation at scale. It is an interesting ‘trick’. A very useful device. It was very successful at uniting (poor) tribes into larger national and cultural units with similar ethical, moral, and legal codes.  WHile we may argue that the allegorical and magical nature of most religions is logically absurd, it is not necessarily illogical that religion has been demonstrated to be the most successful means by which to aggregate people into common ethical, moral and legal structures.

    THE HIGH TRUST SOCIETY
    The west achieved it’s High Trust Society status by forbidding cousin marriage out to six, eight or even ten generations, and extending property rights to women. By those two acts, over time, in fact, all people within a region were either near genetic relations, or had the possibility of becoming near genetic relations.

    THE FAILURE OF THE RELIGIONS
    This is why the west was more successful than any other culture at extending not just ‘love’ but property rights and economic cooperation to all members of the community.  Other societies may have succeeded in extending interpersonal treatment of others beyond family boundaries, but they were unsuccessful at extending property rights away from the paternal family or the totalitarian state.  Because of this, other ‘religious love’ actually was destructive to the economic, social, legal, and political development of those countries. It prohibited rather than encouraged a division of labor into specialization, and the concentration and coordination of capital into the production of consumer goods..

    THE FAILURE OF SECULAR HUMANISM
    Secular humanism, or Totalitarian Humanism, like it’s ancestors Postmodernism, Scientific Socialism, Socialism, Marxism, Christianity, and Judaism, attempts to regress western civilization’s emphasis on private property and public actions by returning us to totalitarian management of property as a commons, and forcible rather than voluntary charity.

    THE SHORTAGE OF USEFUL ‘RELIGIONS’ (Myths and Rituals)
    Religions can work if they support production and private property as did protestantism.  The problem is that only greek and german hero-worship and perhaps Shinto, other than protestantism, are compatible with the retention of property rights and individualism.  The American Constitution, the English Common Law,

    But then, this is one of the great problems of human history and we barely understand it.

    https://www.quora.com/Can-atheists-fall-in-love-If-an-atheist-does-not-believe-in-God-because-they-need-proof-can-they-fall-in-love-which-presumably-also-cannot-be-proven-And-if-so-how-do-they-know

  • We dont need another way of thinking. We cant convince anyone to adopt it. We do

    We dont need another way of thinking. We cant convince anyone to adopt it. We dont need a new religion or belief.

    What we need is to understand why our beliefs, ways of thinking, and institutions failed to survive the extension of the franchise, and what to do about it now that they have failed.

    We cannot turn back the clock. Nor is the absurdity of the progressive fantasy either possible or survivable.

    It appears possible to reform our institutions by impending systemic collapse, or by outright insurrection.

    But it is clear that the majority favors feudal equality over entrepreneurial freedom. Numbers tell us that they do.

    So if we are to have freedom and they equality without one side conquering the other then we must sever our relations into multiple states or develop an alternative to majority monopoly rule.

    Given the value of scale in an insurer of last resort, and the virtue of a multiplicity of city states. And given the economic opportunity and cultural freedom that secession creates for each state, it may be possible to design a compromise solution which serves the moral differences and financial commonalities if each given modern technology.

    It would take a few years to implement but that time would permit demographic adjustment as well as the dismantlement of the federal monopoly, and the possibility if the solution would give vent to what is now leading to civil war.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-28 14:47:00 UTC

  • LIBERTY (MAYBE IT’S THE COFFEE) I was just going to sit and relax and listen to

    LIBERTY (MAYBE IT’S THE COFFEE)

    I was just going to sit and relax and listen to a book on tape today before designing this one feature that needs some of my attention.

    And then one particular post just made me lose my patience.

    Why the hell do I want to reform libertarianism?

    Because I spent most of my life trying to solve the problem of CONFLICT. And I spent most of my early adulthood trying to find a language that would give aristocratic conservatives the ability to defend their ideas in ratio-scientific rather than purely moral and allegorical terms.

    And then, by accident, in a speech by Hans Hoppe I saw that he had made necessary, not preferential arguments. I knew something was wrong. I intuited that something was wrong with his logic. And it bothered me. But the fact that he had found a path through democracy was enough of a starting point.

    It has taken me twelve years from hearing that speech, to base his arguments on science rather than rationalism. And to correct libertarian arguments by returning them from the ghetto to the aristocracy where they came from.

    The kernel of the solution to political conflict is in Hoppe’s work. It’s not right yet. His Argumentation is a DESCRIPTION not a CAUSE. But it allowed me to find the CAUSE and with that cause, explain all moral codes and how we can cooperate across them, rather than the need for a monopoly of moral codes that imposes one morality by political force upon others with different moral preferences.

    Libertarians need not be so self impressed. Conservatives, without reason and science, are much more effective at politics that we are. And that is because they correctly understand human nature.

    We have an INCORRECT (arguably semitic) assumption about human nature in our rothbardian arguments that is scientifically false, demonstrably undesirable, and demonstrably ineffective. The aristocratic west is the only high trust society in existence. And we accomplished that using the moral code of conservatives, not rothbardian libertarianism.

    We were wrong on morality. The conservatives were right. Hoppe is right on institutions. But we must understand that we were wrong on morality and as such we are INSUFFICIENT in our institutional solutions.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-28 06:20:00 UTC