Theme: Agency

  • DIVORCE / RELATIONSHIP SUCCES I am about as opposite from the postmodern, progre

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805814027/ref=tsm_1_fb_lkPREDICTING DIVORCE / RELATIONSHIP SUCCES

    I am about as opposite from the postmodern, progressive, new age, nonsensical fabricated reality that a person can be. But I do care about normal human relationships.

    John Gottman has made a career out of studying marriages both successful an failed. He has written a series of books, (all which say the same thing.) But it’s based upon pretty good science. This article is a brief summary of why relationships fail. It is why my marriage to Allora failed when the disagreements became greater than each other could tolerate.

    I remember sitting in the living room looking up at her and saying “Do you tell everyone you know how much you hate your husband?’. And countless times “I’m flooded.” Which in male terms means your brain has shut down from all the negative emotion, and you don’t have any emotions any longer, you’re just numb. It’s not that you don’t care. It’s that nothing is working at all.

    1) Harsh Start To Conversation: “When one partner begins the discussion using a harsh startup, such as being negative, accusatory or using contempt, the discussion is basically doomed to fail.”

    2) Criticism: “Why are you so selfish? It was really nasty of you to lead me on.

    You should have told me earlier that you were too tired to make love.”

    3) Contempt: Criticism can lead to contemptuous comments directed at one’s partner. Some examples of contempt are when a person uses “sarcasm, cynicism, name-calling, eye rolling, sneering, mockery, and hostile humor”

    Contempt communicates disgust.

    4) Defense: Becoming defensive is the usual reaction to being treated with contempt or criticized, but it is not a solution. It simply means they don’t know what else to do.

    5) Tune Out / Stonewalling: The escalating conflict usually leads to one partner tuning out the other and stonewalling.

    6) Flooding: Flooding means that your spouse’s negativity – whether in the guise of criticism or contempt or even defensiveness – is so overwhelming and so sudden, that it leaves you disconnected, numb and confused.”

    7) Body Language: Physiological changes in the body that coincide with flooding, such as an increased heart rate, the secretion of adrenalin, and an increase in blood pressure, are the fourth sign that enables Gottman to predict divorce. These physiological changes in the body make it impossible to maintain the discussion. Creative problem solving disappears You’re left

    with the most reflexive, intellectually unsophisticated responses in your repertoire: to fight (act critical, contemptuous, or defensive) or flee (stonewall) A problem solving discussion that leads to one or both partners becoming

    flooded is doomed to fail. Consequently, their problem cannot be resolved.

    8) The next sign that a marriage is bound to end in divorce is when one

    partner’s attempts at repairing the conflict fails. Repair attempts are efforts made by the couple to deescalate the conflict.

    9) The final sign that divorce is inevitable is when the couple recalls their past

    life together with a negative view.

    ADVICE

    1) Start all discussions positively.

    2) The “repair attempt” is the happy couple’s secret weapon.

    NAGGING

    Nagging does not work. You might think that you’re helping your man, but it does not work. Your spouse will always see nagging as criticism of failure, and helping as disapproval or accusation of weakness. Men live in a world of exchanges with men, and seeking approval from women. Women live in a world of caretaking. You cannot alter this reality. We could not exist as human beings if we did otherwise.

    http://www.amazon.com/What-Predicts-Divorce-Relationship-Processes/dp/0805814027


    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-31 05:21:00 UTC

  • WHY ARE HAPPY PEOPLE HAPPY? Advice for teens and twenties. Unfortunately, pervas

    WHY ARE HAPPY PEOPLE HAPPY?

    Advice for teens and twenties.

    Unfortunately, pervasive happiness comes in large part from biological predisposition due to the different productivity of inherited cerebral chemistry. These problems are exacerbated by lack of exercise, diet, low level allergic reaction, and minor illnesses that are often difficult if not impossible to detect until late in life. Thankfully prescription chemistry, exercise, and diet generally compensate for the average person long enough to change behavior and disposition.

    2) Remember that until we mature fully, from the time we start adulthood, in males, lots of previous avenues for positive emotional stimulation are being shut off, and in females, lots of possible avenues for stimulation are being exaggerated. Each by different biochemistry. These changes place extraordinary challenges on our moods as we search for ways to maintain stable pleasurable inputs amidst ether decreasing avenues for getting them, or increasing sensitivity to negatives amidst a scarcity of positives. The only known way to combat it is actually exercise and socialization. But the school system’s emphasis on keeping people of similar age together instead of mixing ages, among a majority of adults, makes it very difficult for both teens and twenties, who are surrounded by people in similar periods of biologically induced psychological confusion.

    3) What can you do? Eat clean. Get hard exercise just a few times a week. (Yes, two hour sessions of very physical sex that make you sweat do count a little bit). If you get bored with exercise it just isn’t hard enough in a short enough period. And get drugs if you need to. As a side effect, a good deal of them actually make you quite a bit smarter – albiet slowly. And that’s always good for everyone.

    4) Magic bullet? The magic bullet is team sports. It doesn’t matter which one. This allows our very human pack instinct to give you feedback without having to search for ‘spirituality’ or some other private means of achieving the feeling of safety and participation in the pack. (Yes, that’s what that spiritual feeling is caused by and why we like it so much.) As a nerd, I understand the problem with team sports, but hey, I played competitive video games. It works, just gotta get exercise elsewhere. Walking fast while shopping will do it believe it or not. Book on tape and walking fast is great for the brain. ‘Cause that nonsense you were taught from 5th-12th grade, other than math, is probably absolutely useless in today’s society. And because of multiculturalism, the teachers can’t teach you anything meaningful about history. And history is the only reasonable record of what humans actually do, rather than what we wish they did.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-30 06:58:00 UTC

  • FEELINGS We all have feelings about norms. Often feelings about habits. Possibly

    FEELINGS

    We all have feelings about norms. Often feelings about habits. Possibly about processes. But can you have feelings about formula or calculations? Why?


    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-23 12:14:00 UTC

  • Property Is Not Created by a Choice, Or by a Belief. But by Action. That Action is The Application of Organized Violence.

    [O]nly humans can act. 1) Any description of a political concept, that is not articulated as action, is an attempt to obscure those actions. THis is the meaning of praxeology. It makes the involuntary transfers visible. If you cannot describe rights in praxeological terms, it’s because you are either unable to articulate thema s action, and therefore fail to understand them, or you are engaging self deception in order to justify your thefts, or you are engaging in the deception of others in order to justify your thefts. 2) Describing property as that which we obtain through voluntary exchange and homesteading, is an epistemic statement: it tells us only how we can KNOW something adheres to the contract for the institution of property, and therefore we have exclusive (a monopoly) of control over its use. It’s an epistemic statement. It still requires the contract in order for others to respect the property of yours. Implicit in any claim for several (individual, private) property, is that the grant is reciprocal. The fact that you don’t articulate this reciprocity is an accident or a contrivance. But if it is reciprocal than it is an act of exchange. It must be.

    [callout]Any attempt to state that rights are acquired other than by organized violence is an attempt to acquire them at a discount. In other words, it is an act of fraud. Any attempt at utilitarian justification then opens us to the utilitarianism of involuntary transfer, and undermines the entire libertarian argument that property rights are absolute.[/callout]

    3) It is entirely possible to state that you are not engaging in a reciprocal contract (an agreement) but in fact,t hat you are stating demands that you will back by violence. And this is, in fact, how the institution of property was created in the west, and eventually extended through enfranchisement to the militia, and then through political and tax enfranchisement to the middle class, and finally through vote-enfranchisement to the proletariat. (Who were advanced to consumers because of industrialization and capitalism.) Unfortunately, thinking that your violence is meaningful as an individual is an absurd proposition, since there is no evidence that individual violence can achieve anything, property included, without allies to enforce egalitarian property ownership by violence. The source of property is violence. But it is organized violence for the purpose of egalitarian (enfranchised) individual ownership of property. 4) the natura, instinctual, and genetic order of man is tribal – the ethics of the extended family. The west invented private property for a sequence of reasons that resulted in the high trust society that made our western exceptionalism possible. But the rest of humanity still engages in racial, tribal and familialism. And the most primitive and sedentary cultures, on matrilineal familialism. It is instinctual. while alpha males desire to crate tribes, and strong tribes. Women instinctively desire both to constrain alphas in order to control mate selection, and desire to place responsibility for the feeding of their children on the tribe – not themselves. These are our competing genetic strategies and they play out in every aspect of life. With women enfranchised into the voting pool, and increasingly abandoning the artificial institution of the nuclear family, they are exercising their instincts to restore the primitive, pre-herding order of human society. This is what we see in western voting patterns. Not a change in the distribution of male philosophical predisposition toward political orders, but an increasing expression of the female reproductive strategy let loose from the agrarian constraint of the nuclear family. 5) Rothbard recreated the mystical jewish religion of the ghetto, ignoring in his example of both the ghetto and Crusoe’s island, that there is a walled fortress of soldiers around the ghetto, and the violence of the ocean around Crusoe’s island. These are convenient defices that obscure, like his property rights, that the source of property is not choice, not will, not a divine right, not a gift from a divinity, not an abstraction. The source of property is the application of organized violence to acquire and hold property rights, such that all who participate in the violence used to obtain and hold those rights, possess that right of sovereignty: property rights. Any attempt to state that rights are acquired other than by organized violence is an attempt to acquire them at a discount. In other words, it is an act of fraud. Any attempt at utilitarian justification then opens us to the utilitarianism of involuntary transfer, and undermines the entire libertarian argument that property rights are absolute. Rothbard did us a favor by inventing propertarianism. Even though it appears that he did not understand what he had done. But we must, absolutely must, free libertarianism from the ghetto, and return it to the aristocracy that created it. Property is not a belief. A moral code, a sentiment, or a feeling. It is an institution created by the organized application of violence. Because property CAN only be created by the organized application of violence. Hoppe has succeeded in creating the institutions necessary for a homogenous polity. But he did not succeed in creating institutions necessary for a heterogeneous polity. Hopefully I’ll succeed. Not quite sure yet. Time will tell.

  • KEEPING PERSONAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ON THE SAME PAGE ‘Curt, Why do you write both

    KEEPING PERSONAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ON THE SAME PAGE

    ‘Curt, Why do you write both personal and philosophical posts on the same facebook account?’

    The answer is that we humans interpret things we dont understand through the lenses available to us, and the first lens we use is to judge the author. Because we seek out his intent, so that we can extrapolate his bias. Rather than spend the effort trying to understand his work.

    I discovered quite early on, that people constructed a vision of me based upon my philosophical and political writing that was the polar opposite of my personality.

    So, first, my work is truly inseparable from my life. And second, I find that the fact that I’m more than a bit silly, ‘humanizes’ the interpretation of my work, and intellectualizes people’s interpretation of me as a person.

    Now, I’m not two months, almost three months late kicking off the Propertarian Institute (the software we’re building is a pretty difficult distraction).

    And when that happens, I’ll separate the two streams of thought and post to my page and site FROM the Propertarian site. When it’s a good thing. But I have to let the editor have control of that. So FB for sketches and Propertarianism and the PI site for more thoughtful work.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-16 05:33:00 UTC

  • A Propertarian Definition of Ruthless

    “ruth·less /ˈro͞oTHləs/ Adjective Having or showing no pity or compassion for others. feeling or showing no mercy; Synonyms merciless – pitiless – unmerciful – remorseless Propertarian translation: disregard for externalities. Different from ‘cruel’ which is to intentionally cause externalities.”

  • LIFE LESSONS 1) Make very few commitments. 2) If you make a commitment, then hol

    LIFE LESSONS

    1) Make very few commitments.

    2) If you make a commitment, then hold to it.

    3) If you do commit to anything, never within a definite time frame. All costs are opportunity costs. Fulfill any opportunity at the highest discount.

    4) Search for every possible opportunity.

    4) Failure indebts you.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-03 11:50:00 UTC

  • DUALITY : GUILT WHETHER WRITING OR ‘WORKING’. When I was writing full time I fel

    DUALITY : GUILT WHETHER WRITING OR ‘WORKING’.

    When I was writing full time I felt guilty about not ‘working’. And now that I’m ‘working’ I feel guilty about not writing. I have to make time for it. :/

    RESEARCH SOFTWARE ON THE MAC?

    Well, honestly, I just save everything to a directory on my laptop. Dropbox copies it. And once in a while I organize it.

    But it’s pretty easy really. In the case of libertarian political philosophy, the canonical works are pretty limited. And conservative philosophy even more so. One might argue that the entire conservative body of work is a demonstration of a failure of conservatives to undertand themselves. I understand that they’re relying on heroic, inspirational language that is effectively structured as a traditionalist or legendary religion. But they’re just indefensible against secular socialism because they don’t really understand their own belief system.

    On top of that limited amount of canonical information, we’ve incorporated economic thought pretty thoroughly into our philosophical framework and pretty much figured out the problem of measurement. So, I don’t really have to address those issues. Our problems are institutional. It’s not that we haven’t accommodated economics.

    Libertarians are still lagging because we haven’t solve the problem of ethics – rather, we haven’t articulated the full scope of ethics necessary to describe the moral framework of aristocratic egalitarianism used by Conservatives. And Rothbard’s little side-adventure into ghetto ethics has both provided the means to solve the problem of ethics, and at the same time, done it so badly that we haven’t been able to either gain the cooperation of the conservatives, or solve the problem of political systems in heterogeneous polities.

    Hopefully I’ll fix that. 🙂

    But all that said, the problem of writing libertarian philosophy isn’t so much one of academic research. The problem is reordering our thinking back toward aristocratic ethics, and away from the ghetto, while at the same time realizing that we have extended the scope of the market to include those who do not share such aristocratic ethics, and for whom those ethics pose a genetic hindrance that forever will keep them out of our quarter.

    So my work isn’t so much one of citations, but of articulating what we have failed to articulate to date, about aristocratic egalitarianism on the one and, and the totality of human political requirements in a market society on the other.

    TOOLS I USE ON THE MAC:

    Scrivener

    WordPress (I sketch a lot of my ideas online – my entire glossary is up there.)

    Notepad/Wordpad

    Skim

    Papers

    Dropbox and Evernote

    I’m considering moving into DevonThink.

    And Alfred for searching.

    My biggest technology problem seems to be copying text in and out of Kindle, now that I’ve switch to buying on Kindle whenever possible. (Maybe someone has a bright idea on how to help me with this?)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-18 07:05:00 UTC

  • RUTHLESS Ok. So yes. I have this reputation. And yes. I’ve earned it. But the tr

    RUTHLESS

    Ok. So yes. I have this reputation. And yes. I’ve earned it. But the truth is, it’s not one that you want. It’s like being a mercenary. Everybody wants them when they need them. But you’re uncomfortable if they’re living next door.

    When I married Allora, I made a pledge to stop being ruthless. And, working with my friend Jim, who tempers my rather ruthless tendencies. (Although he is just as ruthless operationally as I am strategically. ) But events and pressures can make dead old habits come back to life.

    But ruthlessness has a natural side effect: loyalty. And I’m loyal.

    Why? Well, the world is chaotic – or more accurately “kaleidic”. And, because the world is kaleidic, and we are possessed of too little information at all times. And because of this paucity of information, we we all need a means of making decisions. Especially when it is almost impossible to make a decision between multiple possible paths that lead to equally beneficial outcomes.

    Now, there are a whole lot of options available to you. Norms, rules, habits, beliefs, myths, superstitions. And most of these means of choosing, are constructed around different ideas of a ‘common good’. Under the theory that you will not be blamed, materially or morally, for making decisions that are made according to those rules.

    Unfortunately, I am only too aware of the fact that the only common good we can ever really know is the respect for property. I certainly don’t agree with the american cultural concept of the ‘common good’. Secondly, I don’t exactly have the emotional portfolio of the average person, so I can’t rely on all sorts of sentiments and habits.

    One sentiment that I both understand and feel strongly is loyalty. This is partly because relationships are a high transaction cost for me – once I find a person good enough to work with I prefer to invest heavily in that person.

    But Loyalty is an emotionally loaded word. In practice it means bearing costs, even if only in the form of opportunity costs, on behalf of others as an investment in a shared objective. We like to think of it emotionally. But as I state elsewhere, all emotions are reactions to changes in state of our property – if property is understood in its broadest sense. And loyalty is the act of making the best use of a large investment in an individual.

    So faced with a Kaleidic universe, and in need of a means of decision making, I make my decisions based upon loyalty. Which is to say on the property I understand and can calculate.

    And, as a rational creature, and a propertarian, it’s actually the only choice available to me. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-06 10:04:00 UTC

  • THE CEO MIND I think all if us are the same. I don’t want to be in charge. None

    THE CEO MIND

    I think all if us are the same. I don’t want to be in charge. None of us do. Its hard. Everyone wants to be in charge until they are, and realize that it sucks.

    A good ceo doesn’t really want to be in charge. He is just afraid that everyone else is even worse than he is.

    🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-31 02:22:00 UTC