Nov 23, 2019, 12:44 PM RESPONDING TO DISGUST by Luke Weinhagen Responding to disgust – First we ignore it Until we can’t Then we isolate it from us Until we can’t Then we isolate ourselves from it Until we can’t Then we try to correct it Until we can’t Then we try to accept it Until we can’t Then we can’t, so we don’t (Exhaustive pathological forbearance is to our masculine as pathological altruism is to our feminine – vulnerabilities who’s healthy forms serve our in-group well but expose us to exploitation by parasites in their unhealthy expression)
Theme: Agency
-
Responding to Disgust
Nov 23, 2019, 12:44 PM RESPONDING TO DISGUST by Luke Weinhagen Responding to disgust – First we ignore it Until we can’t Then we isolate it from us Until we can’t Then we isolate ourselves from it Until we can’t Then we try to correct it Until we can’t Then we try to accept it Until we can’t Then we can’t, so we don’t (Exhaustive pathological forbearance is to our masculine as pathological altruism is to our feminine – vulnerabilities who’s healthy forms serve our in-group well but expose us to exploitation by parasites in their unhealthy expression)
-
Love is very simple to explain…
Nov 23, 2019, 8:34 PM by Joseph E. Postma Love is very simple to explain… For a woman, you get the feeling of love where there is the possibility of a nest. For a man, you get the feeling of love where there is the possibility of fertility. Love is THAT simple. It’s a nice feeling…but it’s very mechanical in fact, and very simple. It’s more or less rational when you have a male and female of roughly equal marketability and roughly equally-limited supply, i.e., in a healthy community. Then you get good families and roughly good marriages. A female nests, a male inseminates. Rich men give the proposition of unlimited nesting, hence they are given unlimited supply. Young attractive (healthy) women give the proposition of unlimited inseminating, hence they are given unlimited offer. In these bounds are marketability and also disposability. At the boundaries, you get insanity of course and nothing rational at all. Unlimited supply on one hand, and zero on the other. It’s simply about what leads to, what has the potential to lead to, successful reproduction…which is what genes want. A woman has every right to value the potential to nest from her partner (agency, wealth, resources), as a man has every right to value the potential of fertility (young, healthy, attractive).
-
Love is very simple to explain…
Nov 23, 2019, 8:34 PM by Joseph E. Postma Love is very simple to explain… For a woman, you get the feeling of love where there is the possibility of a nest. For a man, you get the feeling of love where there is the possibility of fertility. Love is THAT simple. It’s a nice feeling…but it’s very mechanical in fact, and very simple. It’s more or less rational when you have a male and female of roughly equal marketability and roughly equally-limited supply, i.e., in a healthy community. Then you get good families and roughly good marriages. A female nests, a male inseminates. Rich men give the proposition of unlimited nesting, hence they are given unlimited supply. Young attractive (healthy) women give the proposition of unlimited inseminating, hence they are given unlimited offer. In these bounds are marketability and also disposability. At the boundaries, you get insanity of course and nothing rational at all. Unlimited supply on one hand, and zero on the other. It’s simply about what leads to, what has the potential to lead to, successful reproduction…which is what genes want. A woman has every right to value the potential to nest from her partner (agency, wealth, resources), as a man has every right to value the potential of fertility (young, healthy, attractive).
-
There are 3 major competing ideas of rationality/irrationality in economic theory.
There are 3 major competing ideas of rationality/irrationality in economic theory.
- Mostly applied by neo-classical economists which assumes rational actors are at play. That people when they have access to information required to make what is deemed a ‘rational’ choice will pursue their own interests and act accordingly, and of paramount importance to all their fancy math is that they will act predictably, and this view of homo-economicus is absolutely necessary for the type of planning that most mainstream economists like to engage in. It of course also provides an endless justification for their own profession. There is only marginal utility in this view and what it occasionally gets right is just that in some cases, the value judgments of the economists line up with the aggregate effects created by the value judgments of the actors in question making real world decisions.
- Mostly applied by behavioral economists, is the observation that people in fact do not always act rationally. That people are full of ‘biases’ and do not act in predictable ways. Although this often still leads to many trying to seek top down control of society to direct people to make decisions that are in their own purported best interests as determined by the behavioral economists who have created a laundry list of hundreds of alleged cognitive defects. The challenge with this theory is that the values of the economists are again externally placed onto the actors in question. And when people choose bad methods to achieve their stated goal they are by default labelled as ‘irrational’, or stated to be seeking the wrong goals due to what they label as ‘cognitive biases’. This is in fact, a fallacy on its own because its predicated on a false axiom that people are either irrational or rational in working towards their goals. What I like about the behavioral economists is that they are of course thinking critically and rightfully of the above view of the classical economists and showing that obviously people do not act in a perfectly predictable manner. Daniel Kahneman would be the most popular person of this general view, a brilliant statistician.
A very uncommon outlook is one that I think is the most consistent view of human behavior in economics to date, and its fairly old. The origin of this line of thought begins with Mises not only a great economist but a very original sociologist and liberal philosopher who produced a lot of material that I very much recommend reading. All conscious human action is purposeful, and since all purposeful, conscious action requires thought before execution all such manner of human behavior is inherently a product of rationality. It cannot be irrational by our very nature. Irrationality is reserved for the unconscious un-thinking reaction to stimuli. But such irrational behavior lasts for moments, it does not make economic decisions for us. Thinking of all human behavior as purposeful and inherently rational simply means that one must adopt a radical subjectivist approach to human values, following the subjective theory of value as developed by Carl Menger. The apparent ‘irrationality’ as described by behaviorists can only be labelled as such by inflicting external values on the actors being observed, and we are unaware of the values of the actors. When someone is choosing methods ill advised for their own stated goals these goals can be independent of time preference and other values which are not available for the observer to see. Not all people are as good at pursuing their goals, not all people are as intelligent or logical as one another, not all people choose efficient methods and this too is a result of values. To state such apparent failings of individuals to achieve their ends as simply ‘irrational’ is a very anti-human view. The idea that 3rd party observers know better than others is to disregard the values of the actors at play and is therefore a fallacy which is inherently conducive to top down planning of the lives of such people who we think, ought to be adopting our own values. All humans are rational, its what makes us human.
A side note about Menger’s Theory of Subjective Value is that it has never been refuted, and so convincing in fact that Marx even read Menger in his later days and stopped writing because he basically knew he was wrong on his labor theory of value which was borrowed from the classical economists.
-
There are 3 major competing ideas of rationality/irrationality in economic theory.
There are 3 major competing ideas of rationality/irrationality in economic theory.
- Mostly applied by neo-classical economists which assumes rational actors are at play. That people when they have access to information required to make what is deemed a ‘rational’ choice will pursue their own interests and act accordingly, and of paramount importance to all their fancy math is that they will act predictably, and this view of homo-economicus is absolutely necessary for the type of planning that most mainstream economists like to engage in. It of course also provides an endless justification for their own profession. There is only marginal utility in this view and what it occasionally gets right is just that in some cases, the value judgments of the economists line up with the aggregate effects created by the value judgments of the actors in question making real world decisions.
- Mostly applied by behavioral economists, is the observation that people in fact do not always act rationally. That people are full of ‘biases’ and do not act in predictable ways. Although this often still leads to many trying to seek top down control of society to direct people to make decisions that are in their own purported best interests as determined by the behavioral economists who have created a laundry list of hundreds of alleged cognitive defects. The challenge with this theory is that the values of the economists are again externally placed onto the actors in question. And when people choose bad methods to achieve their stated goal they are by default labelled as ‘irrational’, or stated to be seeking the wrong goals due to what they label as ‘cognitive biases’. This is in fact, a fallacy on its own because its predicated on a false axiom that people are either irrational or rational in working towards their goals. What I like about the behavioral economists is that they are of course thinking critically and rightfully of the above view of the classical economists and showing that obviously people do not act in a perfectly predictable manner. Daniel Kahneman would be the most popular person of this general view, a brilliant statistician.
A very uncommon outlook is one that I think is the most consistent view of human behavior in economics to date, and its fairly old. The origin of this line of thought begins with Mises not only a great economist but a very original sociologist and liberal philosopher who produced a lot of material that I very much recommend reading. All conscious human action is purposeful, and since all purposeful, conscious action requires thought before execution all such manner of human behavior is inherently a product of rationality. It cannot be irrational by our very nature. Irrationality is reserved for the unconscious un-thinking reaction to stimuli. But such irrational behavior lasts for moments, it does not make economic decisions for us. Thinking of all human behavior as purposeful and inherently rational simply means that one must adopt a radical subjectivist approach to human values, following the subjective theory of value as developed by Carl Menger. The apparent ‘irrationality’ as described by behaviorists can only be labelled as such by inflicting external values on the actors being observed, and we are unaware of the values of the actors. When someone is choosing methods ill advised for their own stated goals these goals can be independent of time preference and other values which are not available for the observer to see. Not all people are as good at pursuing their goals, not all people are as intelligent or logical as one another, not all people choose efficient methods and this too is a result of values. To state such apparent failings of individuals to achieve their ends as simply ‘irrational’ is a very anti-human view. The idea that 3rd party observers know better than others is to disregard the values of the actors at play and is therefore a fallacy which is inherently conducive to top down planning of the lives of such people who we think, ought to be adopting our own values. All humans are rational, its what makes us human.
A side note about Menger’s Theory of Subjective Value is that it has never been refuted, and so convincing in fact that Marx even read Menger in his later days and stopped writing because he basically knew he was wrong on his labor theory of value which was borrowed from the classical economists.
-
Male and Female Differences in Mindfulness and Its Affect on Relationships
Nov 28, 2019, 9:37 AM NET: We are baited into an ideal that s no longer accessible because the incentives are no longer functional. Women are a sex prize on a pedestal, and men are a resource prize. From: 5 Ways Women Are Trained to Hate Men by John Hawkins of RW News and 5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women by David Wong of Cracked There is actually a lot more propaganda aimed at getting women to hate men than vice-versa. 1) Hollywood/Commercials: Ever heard of the Lifetime Network? Every man is a menacing stranger, every husband a wife-beating philanderer, and every date, a potential rape waiting to happen. Then there’s the hapless, incompetent father character who has become such a staple of television shows and commercials that he’s become a stereotype. There are lots of groups that can — and do — complain about how they’re portrayed on TV, but men could kvetch as much as any of them if they so desired. 2) Women’s Magazines/Romance Novels: You might think women’s magazines are all about today’s empowered women who are starting their own businesses, competing with men on their own terms, and working their way to the top in politics. Uh…not quite. In other words, women buy women’s magazines to figure out which sort of men they should pursue and how to please them so they can get married. That’s kind of shallow, but not any moreso than men, who buy men’s magazines primarily to figure out how to impress women. The problem is that women’s magazines, like romance novels, have set the bar so high that there are like 12 guys who meet it. A man is basically looking for a woman he thinks is attractive, who admires him, who’s nice to him, who wants to take care of him, and who likes to cook and have sex. In other words, it’s still probably the same basic formula that cavemen were using. The message women get today, on the other hand, is that they should be looking for a man who looks like a cross between a bodybuilder and a professional model, who should either be filthy rich and/or a viking/pirate/vampire who’s incredibly dangerous and romantic, but can be converted into a house hubby via his emotion-releasing attaction to a woman, so they can live happily ever after, in eternal passion and in complete comfort forevermore. One of the biggest reasons that the age people first get married in this country has gone up considerably over the last few decades is the ideal consistently presented by women’s magazines and romance novels is so far out of line with reality that almost every real man women run across seems like a disappointment in comparison. 3) The court system: The whole “women can do anything a man can do,” “we’re empowered” thing reminds me of a tactic John Stewart likes to use. He makes serious commentary that he wants to affect how people think, but when he gets called on it, he says, “Hey, I’m just a comedian. You can’t take what I say at face value!” In other words, it’s “clown nose on, clown nose off” based on whatever best suits his purposes. We get the same thing with the court system Men and women both have equal responsibility to take care of a child. So, can the father have shared custody after a divorce? No, the kid needs his mother. The woman makes more than the man. Can he have alimony? A man getting alimony? That’s ridiculous! Women are just as tough as men and can do anything they can do in the office! Unless, “Oh my gosh! Someone told a joke about a prostitute and a priest walking into a bar! I’m traumatized! It was almost as bad as the swimsuit calender on the wall! That’s was sexual harassment!” A good looking guy asks a woman out and she goes. An unattractive man asks a woman out and it’s sexual harassment. Clown nose on, women are empowered and strong, clown nose off, women are delicate little flowers who’ll be bruised by being treated the same way men are on a day-to-day basis. 4) Politics: Haven’t you heard about the “war on women?” Women are being asked to pay for their birth control — just like men are! So obviously, they’re being kept down! Haven’t you heard that women don’t make as much as men? Granted, they don’t work as much either or in professions that are as dangerous or unpleasant, but still, it’s men keeping women down! The rhetoric doesn’t need to have anything to do with reality; it just has to be useful to the politicians using it to try to get elected. 5) Liberal feminism: Liberal feminism has as much to do with hating men as it does with empowering women. It tells women that there’s a “patriarchy” out there that doesn’t exist, that men have it better than women, plays up any and all grievances between men and women, tells women they’re victims, and generally does all it can to promote gains for women at the expense of men. Liberal feminism is more of man hater’s philosophy than it is a way to lift up women. Thank goodness that there are so many women out there who don’t pay attention to the conditioning that’s all around them in modern American society. — CURTD – ANALYSIS — “Man is a nesting resource” INSECURITY – HIS ATTENTION IS ELSEWHERE Still talking to his ex Ogling at other women Comparing her to his mother or ex (vs Marrying Up, Divorce, Extract, and Dispose of) INSECURITY – HIS MIND IS ELSEWHERE Obsession with gadgets and machines Turning into fitness freaks (vs Obsession with appearance, nesting, status, and hyperconsumption) UNATTRACTIVENESS – HE DOESN”T FIND ME ATTRACTIVE Inflated male egos in a relationship Zoning out and being a selective listener Being completely unromantic and ignoring expressing love Not putting in the effort to turn on their partners and taking sex for granted (vs inflated female perception of value, talking nonsense to men as if they’re girlfriends, being unattractive, and requiring waaaaay too much work to ‘get some’.) UNINTERESTING – HE DOESN’T SHARE MY INTERESTS Hogging the TV remote Unwilling to compromise with activities and interests (vs omg moronic shallow expensive attention whoring interests) DISRESPECTING – HE DOESN”T RESPECT ME Being disgusted by women’s hygiene issues Making a mess and leaving stuff all over the house Slouching on the couch for the entire weekend Excessive burping and farting –VERSUS– “Woman is a sex resource” Men were raised to conform in order to get an attractive woman (and there aren’t any waist-hip ratios any longer) Men were raised to conform in order to put women on a pedestal. (women are used as bait to civilize us) Women conspire against our sex drive (ok for women to ‘advertise’ despite the fact that we find it exasperating) Men can no longer dominance play or achieve manhood by ‘achievable’ means – women dominate the commons. We Feel Powerless in obtaining sex and attention and so there is no point in being civilized. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE DEMAND FOR MINDFULNESS For women, mindfulness is almost impossible in general, because of ‘worries’ (threats). For Men: “90 Percent of Our Energy and Discipline Is Devoted to Overcoming Sex-Hunger, to Behave Like Civilized Human Beings” —“It’s like that for most men, most of the time. We’re starving, and all women are various types of food. Only instead of food, it’s sex. And we’re trying to conduct our everyday business around the fact that we’re trying to renew our driver’s license with a talking pair of boobs. So, from about age 13 on, around 90 percent of our energy and discipline is devoted to overcoming this, to behave like civilized human beings and not like stray dogs in a meat market. One where instead of eating the meat, they want to hump it. Again, if you want to experience what it’s like, get a testosterone injection.”—
-
Male and Female Differences in Mindfulness and Its Affect on Relationships
Nov 28, 2019, 9:37 AM NET: We are baited into an ideal that s no longer accessible because the incentives are no longer functional. Women are a sex prize on a pedestal, and men are a resource prize. From: 5 Ways Women Are Trained to Hate Men by John Hawkins of RW News and 5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women by David Wong of Cracked There is actually a lot more propaganda aimed at getting women to hate men than vice-versa. 1) Hollywood/Commercials: Ever heard of the Lifetime Network? Every man is a menacing stranger, every husband a wife-beating philanderer, and every date, a potential rape waiting to happen. Then there’s the hapless, incompetent father character who has become such a staple of television shows and commercials that he’s become a stereotype. There are lots of groups that can — and do — complain about how they’re portrayed on TV, but men could kvetch as much as any of them if they so desired. 2) Women’s Magazines/Romance Novels: You might think women’s magazines are all about today’s empowered women who are starting their own businesses, competing with men on their own terms, and working their way to the top in politics. Uh…not quite. In other words, women buy women’s magazines to figure out which sort of men they should pursue and how to please them so they can get married. That’s kind of shallow, but not any moreso than men, who buy men’s magazines primarily to figure out how to impress women. The problem is that women’s magazines, like romance novels, have set the bar so high that there are like 12 guys who meet it. A man is basically looking for a woman he thinks is attractive, who admires him, who’s nice to him, who wants to take care of him, and who likes to cook and have sex. In other words, it’s still probably the same basic formula that cavemen were using. The message women get today, on the other hand, is that they should be looking for a man who looks like a cross between a bodybuilder and a professional model, who should either be filthy rich and/or a viking/pirate/vampire who’s incredibly dangerous and romantic, but can be converted into a house hubby via his emotion-releasing attaction to a woman, so they can live happily ever after, in eternal passion and in complete comfort forevermore. One of the biggest reasons that the age people first get married in this country has gone up considerably over the last few decades is the ideal consistently presented by women’s magazines and romance novels is so far out of line with reality that almost every real man women run across seems like a disappointment in comparison. 3) The court system: The whole “women can do anything a man can do,” “we’re empowered” thing reminds me of a tactic John Stewart likes to use. He makes serious commentary that he wants to affect how people think, but when he gets called on it, he says, “Hey, I’m just a comedian. You can’t take what I say at face value!” In other words, it’s “clown nose on, clown nose off” based on whatever best suits his purposes. We get the same thing with the court system Men and women both have equal responsibility to take care of a child. So, can the father have shared custody after a divorce? No, the kid needs his mother. The woman makes more than the man. Can he have alimony? A man getting alimony? That’s ridiculous! Women are just as tough as men and can do anything they can do in the office! Unless, “Oh my gosh! Someone told a joke about a prostitute and a priest walking into a bar! I’m traumatized! It was almost as bad as the swimsuit calender on the wall! That’s was sexual harassment!” A good looking guy asks a woman out and she goes. An unattractive man asks a woman out and it’s sexual harassment. Clown nose on, women are empowered and strong, clown nose off, women are delicate little flowers who’ll be bruised by being treated the same way men are on a day-to-day basis. 4) Politics: Haven’t you heard about the “war on women?” Women are being asked to pay for their birth control — just like men are! So obviously, they’re being kept down! Haven’t you heard that women don’t make as much as men? Granted, they don’t work as much either or in professions that are as dangerous or unpleasant, but still, it’s men keeping women down! The rhetoric doesn’t need to have anything to do with reality; it just has to be useful to the politicians using it to try to get elected. 5) Liberal feminism: Liberal feminism has as much to do with hating men as it does with empowering women. It tells women that there’s a “patriarchy” out there that doesn’t exist, that men have it better than women, plays up any and all grievances between men and women, tells women they’re victims, and generally does all it can to promote gains for women at the expense of men. Liberal feminism is more of man hater’s philosophy than it is a way to lift up women. Thank goodness that there are so many women out there who don’t pay attention to the conditioning that’s all around them in modern American society. — CURTD – ANALYSIS — “Man is a nesting resource” INSECURITY – HIS ATTENTION IS ELSEWHERE Still talking to his ex Ogling at other women Comparing her to his mother or ex (vs Marrying Up, Divorce, Extract, and Dispose of) INSECURITY – HIS MIND IS ELSEWHERE Obsession with gadgets and machines Turning into fitness freaks (vs Obsession with appearance, nesting, status, and hyperconsumption) UNATTRACTIVENESS – HE DOESN”T FIND ME ATTRACTIVE Inflated male egos in a relationship Zoning out and being a selective listener Being completely unromantic and ignoring expressing love Not putting in the effort to turn on their partners and taking sex for granted (vs inflated female perception of value, talking nonsense to men as if they’re girlfriends, being unattractive, and requiring waaaaay too much work to ‘get some’.) UNINTERESTING – HE DOESN’T SHARE MY INTERESTS Hogging the TV remote Unwilling to compromise with activities and interests (vs omg moronic shallow expensive attention whoring interests) DISRESPECTING – HE DOESN”T RESPECT ME Being disgusted by women’s hygiene issues Making a mess and leaving stuff all over the house Slouching on the couch for the entire weekend Excessive burping and farting –VERSUS– “Woman is a sex resource” Men were raised to conform in order to get an attractive woman (and there aren’t any waist-hip ratios any longer) Men were raised to conform in order to put women on a pedestal. (women are used as bait to civilize us) Women conspire against our sex drive (ok for women to ‘advertise’ despite the fact that we find it exasperating) Men can no longer dominance play or achieve manhood by ‘achievable’ means – women dominate the commons. We Feel Powerless in obtaining sex and attention and so there is no point in being civilized. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE DEMAND FOR MINDFULNESS For women, mindfulness is almost impossible in general, because of ‘worries’ (threats). For Men: “90 Percent of Our Energy and Discipline Is Devoted to Overcoming Sex-Hunger, to Behave Like Civilized Human Beings” —“It’s like that for most men, most of the time. We’re starving, and all women are various types of food. Only instead of food, it’s sex. And we’re trying to conduct our everyday business around the fact that we’re trying to renew our driver’s license with a talking pair of boobs. So, from about age 13 on, around 90 percent of our energy and discipline is devoted to overcoming this, to behave like civilized human beings and not like stray dogs in a meat market. One where instead of eating the meat, they want to hump it. Again, if you want to experience what it’s like, get a testosterone injection.”—
-
Here Is the Problem for The Artist
Nov 29, 2019, 12:34 PM The artist cannot necessarily control his intuitions – the elephant is stronger than the rider, and the elephant gets stronger the lower the individual’s agency (class). But he produces a good in a market, like any other, he can be liable for. Criticism (or shaming, or even ridicule at times, and perhaps prosecution) are what all producers of goods risk. HERE. I’LL MAKE IT WORSE Art can EASILY be evaluated by triangulation (ordinal), as can all things not reducible to linear (cardinal) measures. Anything humans value can be evaluated by triangulation. Most of the time, in art, we are measuring ignorance, as in any other field. Likewise, people can be taught the basics of art criticism just as they can be taught the basics of fashion criticism, or of literary criticism, or of movie criticism …like any other system of weights and measures. The fact that they don’t know the method doesn’t mean it’s hard. What we find if we give people a basic education in art criticism (which I can probably do in the space of three hours or so)we find that they are quite good at identifying quality, and need only the language of demarcating decoration and context. What fits where, like ‘manners’. Your bath, bedroom, hallway, living room, office spaces, public buildings, museums, and monuments require different ‘manners’ of behavior, dress … and art. For the same reasons. And that’s what people do everywhere. ( The reason to do otherwise is to take attention by ‘theft’ from those environments. )
-
Here Is the Problem for The Artist
Nov 29, 2019, 12:34 PM The artist cannot necessarily control his intuitions – the elephant is stronger than the rider, and the elephant gets stronger the lower the individual’s agency (class). But he produces a good in a market, like any other, he can be liable for. Criticism (or shaming, or even ridicule at times, and perhaps prosecution) are what all producers of goods risk. HERE. I’LL MAKE IT WORSE Art can EASILY be evaluated by triangulation (ordinal), as can all things not reducible to linear (cardinal) measures. Anything humans value can be evaluated by triangulation. Most of the time, in art, we are measuring ignorance, as in any other field. Likewise, people can be taught the basics of art criticism just as they can be taught the basics of fashion criticism, or of literary criticism, or of movie criticism …like any other system of weights and measures. The fact that they don’t know the method doesn’t mean it’s hard. What we find if we give people a basic education in art criticism (which I can probably do in the space of three hours or so)we find that they are quite good at identifying quality, and need only the language of demarcating decoration and context. What fits where, like ‘manners’. Your bath, bedroom, hallway, living room, office spaces, public buildings, museums, and monuments require different ‘manners’ of behavior, dress … and art. For the same reasons. And that’s what people do everywhere. ( The reason to do otherwise is to take attention by ‘theft’ from those environments. )