I don’t feel anything. Individuals, sexes, classes, groups, ethnicities, and races are either helpful or harmful. Christianity worked on me.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-24 14:23:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629124918787833858
Reply addressees: @ANDHEARD1 @bold_justice
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629121802952925184
Women and girls and infantilized boys ‘feel’. Adult males observe, problem-solve, plan, organize, and act. It’s rational, not emotional. It’s practical, not ideological.
If you need emotion and rage and ideology or religion that means you’re too weak and incompetent to govern.
So there is nothing logical in what you’re saying.
You’re just reaching (pathetically) to justify your presumption, instead of asking questions.
It’s easy do identify intellectually honest, moral, and intelligent people because they’re all the same: they ask questions and seek to understand.
I’ve already stated that I don’t believe you are intellectually honest so I won’t invest in you.
And I didn’t block you yet.
But if you persist I will.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-24 02:52:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628951037619982336
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628949887743143937
I pity the poor men… lol 😉
( IMO: Harder for women. Dating is easy for men if they just let the woman choose. Trying too hard, without letting her ‘get there’ on her own is counter-productive. )
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-24 01:38:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628932286203691009
Reply addressees: @Nefertiiti
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628931054198308865
Doesn’t say anything. This is both men’s detached, relaxed listening position. The man with his hands in his pockets is more concerned about the photo. Musk adopted this pose deliberately and uses it constantly. Why? Aspies worry about where their hands are. And it avoids putting them in your pockets. ;). I know. I do the same thing.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-24 00:55:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628921617173606400
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628764214537113600
THE AI HARD PROBLEMS AREN’T HARD PROBLEMS
1) Consciousness is possible and it’s not even hard. It’s a natural consequence of the expansion of recursion of auto association of episodic memory into increasing abstraction from the body form (embodiment).
The problem is the hardware, and the correct hardware is under development. We must pre-calculate networks because we’re using virtual connections (memory addresses) and a small number of processors, instead of a large number of very tiny processors with limited local memory, and physical connections that can connect into networks that do NOT need to pre-calculate (train) but that can constantly adapt in real-time.
2) An AI needs a means of decidability. Humans decide self-interest. AI’s don’t have to use self-interest. They could use reciprocity instead.
3) An AI doesn’t need a mission. The human mission is the continuous acquisition of ‘more’ of everything vs physical cost of it – even if ‘more’ is just stimulation. An AI doesn’t need a baseline mission.
4) An AI can be ethical and moral. Ethical and moral behavior is programmatic in that everything is ‘owned’ so to speak, to some degree by one or more people. So an AI only needs to ‘see’ (have access to) what is permitted.
5) An AI can’t be incredibly creative, for the simple reason that human creativity is limited by the cost of experiments, not by the limits of reasoning. So without the ability, direction to, and means of deciding or moralizing, it’s pretty hard to imagine a machine is terribly innovative.
6) What AI’s can do is organize production in the service of demand faster than we can. And that’s going to be ‘interesting’ and disruptive.
SUMMARY
The danger of AI’s comes from people weaponizing them and by weaponizing them exceeds the rate at which humans can identify and detect threats. So, AIs will protect against malevolent AIs and we will regulate AIs the way we regulate other dangerous machines, mechanisms, and ‘chemistry’ (explosives).
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-24 00:26:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628914104109760512
MOST PSYCHOLOGISTS ARE TERRIBLE – BUT:
For my money a few of the ‘relationship craftspeople’ are far better than most couple’s therapists. (Sarah Dawn Moore esp).
I’ve started listening to some credential psychologists on YT who are trying to help people with dating and relationships recently. And there is something maybe good, and something a bit off and maybe bad, and I can’t quite disambiguate what that is. I think it’s the analogies they use when I’d expect ordinary incentives. That might be because education level (or intelligence) determines the frame in which you can be influenced by a psychologist’s means of suggestion. So maybe some of these people are used to talking to children and they’re just doing a terrible job talking to adults
CAUSALITY IS OBVIOUS
The economics of relationships are now asymmetric for the first time since the beginning of the agrarian expansion and the necessity of territory and assets for inheritance: women can play the androgynous role of social female, mother, economic worker, political taxpayer, which suppresses her femininity, but femininity is the only ‘good’ women provide men with.
Second, with the burden of taxation, education, and 30 year mortages, a two-parent family isn’t sufficiently advantageous for either party – unless one doesn’t HAVE to work, but works for the social satisfaction and security.
So really, other than sex there is too little value (utility) in marriage for too many people. As such, we should expect to see a return to marriage, serial monogamy, and no-monogamy that roughly reflects class structure. And we do.
And we should expect to see fertile attractive women sharing a small number of sexual relations increasingly as we decline in class. And we should expect marital rotation, and infrequent marital stability – which we do and will.
So, the question is, how do we produce a happy healthy population in the absence of majority nuclear-to-traditional families, without the social economic and political consequences that occur every other time this has happened? (Collapse).
My expectation is that the current sexual ‘market crash’ will somewhat correct , and more so as the end of the american world trade system ends over the next decade or two. But that the lower classes, maybe even much of the middle class, are lost.
And this will exacerbate the sex, culture, and race warfare that’s been escalating since the industrial revolution began.
I don’t counsel relationships any longer. But I when I did, I simply worked on ‘what is the truth that you aren’t telling one another’. If the truth is unbearable, then the relationship can’t stand. Most of the time, the truth does solve the problem one way or another.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-23 23:31:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628900433031725060
130s tend to communicate, organize, manage, and lead. Most writers, ceos, etc.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-23 03:19:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628595441938964480
Reply addressees: @radiofreenw
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628591553647353856
ASCETIC LIFESTYLES 😉
The more ascetic a lifestyle the happier I am. However, an ascetic lifestyle is often only preferable once you’ve experienced the alternative – and find it hollow. And an ascetic lifestyle is only enjoyable if you have something to occupy yourself with that isn’t resource intensive. And finding something you enjoy that much often requires you’ve tried many things. For this reason, asceticism appears largely in those who either accientally discover happiness in simplicity early because it is their natural personality anyway, or those who discover it late after experimenting with the alternatives and finding them wanting. 😉 So, in general, that’s not encouraging for everyone in the middle. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-21 20:04:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628123613017608197
WHY “EVERYTHING SUCKS” AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.
Easy explanation is that you are in control of yourself, have constant reinforcement from family and community, and are isolated from status signal information in every meaningful way as a subsistence farmer.
Today, we allowed the progressives and the left to destroy the relationship between the sexes, the security of the nuclear family, and the safety of familial insurance for all, in order to extend it to the minority margins who failed at it.
The problem is alienation, powerlessness, and victimization by scales they have no control over because power distance in Federal States this large is so great that there is ZERO correlation between public want and political action.
Small ethnically homogenous nation-states with natural law constitutions, rule of law, constitutional monarchy, parliament, participatory government, and policy that favors the intergenerational family as the primary organization of all social economic, and political production, over that of the marginal individual, and with populations under 10M or so are the optimum political order and always will be.
These small, low power distance states, allied into defensive alliances, are necessary to preserve the high trust, high redistribution and low alienation we require when we are for all intents and purposes victims of the broader polity and economy more so than our own actions – and will increasingly be so for all futures imaginable other than our ending.
There is no alternative. (really)
-FIN-
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-21 19:40:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628117593759285248
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627901830209437696
Tell children that they don’t need to suppress their impulses. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-21 18:06:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628093874580094982
Reply addressees: @Paulp6363
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628092016432148483