Feb 7, 2020, 9:02 PM (copied from quora) We process much more information. That’s the major difference. In general you want a big round head, a lot of neural density, and the lowest possible friction of transmission (white matter). In addition to processing more information we often identify increasingly subtle (more remote) patterns. And because of this we can work longer at learning – and some of us (I am certainly one of them) feel anxiety, depression, or pain if we are not learning. So not only can we learn more, faster, but we can learn more because we can learn more hours per day. The more information we have, the more remote the patterns we see, the more we rely on that information and the less on intuition, norm, tradition, and the opinions and ideas of others. Additionally, some people have better short term memories and can hold larger static models. ( Hawking is a great example, but so are many others). I do not have this particular ability and I find that it is what differentiates me from the people who are above me. Additionally some people have superior verbal abilities and can describe what they think of more accessibly. (Noam Chomsky is smarter than I am, in both short term memory and verbal ability, and rarely loses his place no matter how convoluted the conversational route. ) Some of us have more discipline, more conscientiousness, and skepticism and we’re possibly more autistic (which is the result of high neuronal density anyway), and we simply make fewer errors than others. This is very rare. We mature at different rates. Some of us have exceptional abilities in childhood and have nervous breakdowns when we reach young adulthood. (This is a subject I study now and then.) Others mature normally. Others of us mature more slowly. Normies are quite frustrating really. I had the great fortune to have a very old professor of contract law, who told me my sophomore year that “The world is not meant for us. It is meant for them. We are prisoners of their world. And the best we can do is help them through it.” And I found that advice to be profoundly useful in ending the the feeling that normies run the world, like children at a birthday party running with scissors. 😉 —-Updated—- In response to other comments I added this bit of background. We commonly confuse Measurement of intelligence (g), with demonstrated intelligence, with applied intelligence, and with the personality trait of conscientiousness. Let’s disambiguate them so we explain the variables that affect it. Despite appearances, the brain is not a complicated organ. It consists almost entirely of nerve cells. They all do the same thing. And there are only really three or four kinds – depending upon where the ‘decision’ has to be made by the neuron. There are a LOT of these neurons and they’re connected in almost infinite ways. But, what they do is quite simple. How they do it is elegant, and infinitely complex, and it’s a vast parallel division of labor between them. Intelligence consists pretty much of (a) a volume of cells – more is better, (b) efficiency of the network (especially the control of attention) – meaning limiting information-loss as it calculates, (c) how that network grew in utero, and during the first two years, (d) lack of defects in anything that affects the network (and that’s a lot of possibility right there). IQ is our attempt to measure (g) which is about the same class of problem as how much water can get through a big city’s plumbing system, electrical grid, or traffic system, and still give you a shower, power your air conditioner, and get your goods delivered to shops. The formula for resistance in undersea cables and dendrites within neurons is the same. So, we think of (g) as something you ‘get’. But it’s not. It’s more a function how many neurons versus how little friction there is that hinders water, electricity, or traffic (information). The ‘economy’ of the neural synapse is an interesting example. A synapse can only manufacture so many chemicals at any rate. So a synapse can grow until we generate enough demand for more synapses at which point we grow more of them. And out of a set of synapses some will have the resources to discharge chemicals when the neuron fires, and some won’t. How many things can affect just that one micro economy? INTELLIGENCE The Series 1 – (g) intelligence potential … … demonstrated intelligence (you do things) … … … applied intelligence (you achieve things) Depends Upon: 2 – Trait Conscientiousness (stick to it, agency) 3 – Short Term Memory capacity (math in particular) 4 – General Knowledge (can also compensate for iq) 5 – Not wanting falsehoods (preference for truth) 6 – Lack of traumas or other defects At least those six dimensions affect demonstrated and applied intelligence. And despite postmodern (wishful thinking, denial,sophistry, and pseudoscience), measurement of IQ in psychology, and stereotypes in sociology are the two most accurate measurements in the human sciences. IMPORTANT: The data says something very clear though that should temper our interpretation: success is dependent almost entirely on conscientiousness (agency, delayed gratification, diligence). Intelligence determines the degree of complexity under which you can compete with others. But if you can manage to develop agency whether with trait conscientiousness or not, you can be successful in life anywhere along the bell curve (and the opposite is also true). MALE AND FEMALE BRAINS Despite pseudoscientific attempts to obscure it, sex differences in bias, cognition, intelligence, were settled by 2012. The primary differences being the rather obvious, lateral (female) white matter, synthetic, interpersonal, empathic, and generosity (dysgenia: quantity over quality) and the longitudinal (male) grey matter, analytic, political, physical, and parsimonious (eugenia: quality over quantity). So we see specialization in sex cognition as well as sex bias and preference. Stereotypes are largely true a the level of distributions, with bias and preference combined with conscientiousness causing predicted sortition into fields and contexts according to stereotypical differences – and unexpectedly, we see that as equality increases women and men demonstrate GREATER bias to stereotypical fields and contexts – not less. THEORY My current understanding is that intelligence provides a discount on acquisition of knowledge (identification and construction of patterns (networks of relations)), but also increases detection of error, bias, and deceit. This is why western and far eastern bureaucracies focused on promoting people with HIGH IQ’s: they are more successful at defending the polity and economy from ignorance, error, bais, wishful thinking, and deceit.
Theme: Agency
-
Our Movement Makes Leaders – We Don’t Appoint or Approve Them
Feb 9, 2020, 7:38 AM We don’t ask people to do anything. They do them of their own volition. John, Bill, Eli, Brandon, Martin, Alain, Pomen, and the fifty other guys I could mention – we just let the market do its job. And we even spin off people. People take P and use it for their own purposes. And that’s what we want them to do. P creates a big tent on the methodology, but it creates a lot of tribes for the application of it to different political, economic, philosophical, and spiritual frames. Sure, I have a solution for constitutional reformation to continue the western tradition and to follow the hindus and the chinese into insulation from the semitic and african civilizations so that we can each develop our civilizations according to our needs. But you can build any form of political or economic order under P and under rule of law with P – you just have to do it truthfully and reciprocally. So when we say “markets in everything” we mean EVERYTHING.
-
Our Movement Makes Leaders – We Don’t Appoint or Approve Them
Feb 9, 2020, 7:38 AM We don’t ask people to do anything. They do them of their own volition. John, Bill, Eli, Brandon, Martin, Alain, Pomen, and the fifty other guys I could mention – we just let the market do its job. And we even spin off people. People take P and use it for their own purposes. And that’s what we want them to do. P creates a big tent on the methodology, but it creates a lot of tribes for the application of it to different political, economic, philosophical, and spiritual frames. Sure, I have a solution for constitutional reformation to continue the western tradition and to follow the hindus and the chinese into insulation from the semitic and african civilizations so that we can each develop our civilizations according to our needs. But you can build any form of political or economic order under P and under rule of law with P – you just have to do it truthfully and reciprocally. So when we say “markets in everything” we mean EVERYTHING.
-
Thoughts on Peterson, Wilber, and More
Feb 18, 2020, 12:38 PM THOUGHTS ON PETERSON, WILBER, AND MORE by Michael Churchill, with CurtD Regarding Jordan Peterson and Ken Wilber: Wilber’s life arc is quite interesting and perhaps can provide a roadmap for Peterson post-nervous breakdown. Wilber was a bit of a mentor to Peterson and both men worked on the same problem: How to distinguish between internal truth and external truth:
- Internal truth is what I feel to be true (including the realm of feelings themselves).
External truth is what survives falsification in real-world tests.
Both men came to realize that the the strategy of the rank-and-file left is to deliberately conflate internal feelings and externally verifiable fact. (Hence the growth of the mantra “Well that’s my truth.”) When Wilber figured this out, he did the honorable thing and dropped out of the public eye for 5-10 years. Recall that Wilber was almost the Peterson of the ’90s: He started out a darling of the Oprah/Clinton set and was teed up to become a huge star. But two things happened: His wife got sick and his work started to lead him in disturbing, anti-left directions. So he dropped out of the spotlight. When he got back to work, Wilber embraced the implications of his own model and moved rightward. He lost his fey mannerisms and embraced the bearing of the college football player he had once been. My view is that Peterson’s nervous breakdown was caused by his failure to live up to his own extremely high standards. The man who won every debate was recently CRUSHED in a debate on his own website centering on a critical aspect of his worldview: That we are the drivers of our own destiny and group evolutionary strategy is not a relevant player in the game. (Or, more specifically, Peterson was arguing that there is no group who acts on an evolutionary strategy to deliberately undermine western civilization.) Peterson collapsed because he couldn’t escape the implications of this problem: He either had to admit defeat on this point and risk losing his empire, or accept defeat and ALSO risk losing his empire. Thus it seems the proper path for Peterson is to do what Wilber did. Drop out for five years. Recover. Re-work the model to fix its failures and keep what is good. Do not try to please the masters, nor necessarily challenge the masters in public if that doesn’t feel appealing. That is my $0.02 on the matter. by Eric Danelaw: This is a great narrative. Really has me thinking…. I wonder if you could weave campbell in there – as you suggested, as someone who didn’t have those problems. I’d throw in that the problem is jung-christianity where most of us use cognitive science and behavioral economics today. These fantasy literary worlds are disconnected from reality. He uses them because in his practice he can use suggestion rather than direct exposition to ‘seduce’ people to circumvent their natural resistance to correction by others. This is the entire value of suggestive experience (religion, theology, myth, parable, literature, history – suspension of disbelief opens us to suggestion by blame avoidance.) As for causality I’ll take peterson’s meteoric rise, continuous exposure, workload, wife’s cancer, and susceptibility to medicine as the principle cause – but I’ll agree with your consequence. Peterson wasn’t in a position where he could go thru a withdrawal that long in that condition without inflicting suffering on his family – already suffering from his wife’s cancer. And he couldn’t maintain public appearances, and he put his new found income stream at risk. And he had nowhere safe to go and recover. So that’s an awful lot sitting on your shoulders for anyone. But, what I got out of your post was … well, that it hadn’t occurred to me that i have no psychological dream world to run to so I have no psychological dream world to fail me. And that as such the stoics (mindfulness) and epicureans (live well), were simply right all along. And until you wrote this post I didn’t think that the opposite of these ideological and theological frames might be true: that they don’t provide comfort they provide sedation, so that the failure of the dream world is worse than the cost of learning mindfulness. by Michael Churchill Wow that is an awesome read. The moral of Peterson’s collapse is that building your house on a dreamworld — no matter how appealing and helpful in the short term — risks devastating consequences when it collapses. This raises the question of whether Peterson FELT he was building a house of cards as he was going along. It doesn’t seem that way to me. I watched many hours of his lectures before I ever came to your critique of him and I thought his work was pretty solid. Like his analysis of Pinnochio. That was good stuff. And his one-man war against the speech codes in Canada was inspired. Peterson’s only a few years older than me, so very likely he also grew up surrounded by the Joseph Campbell paradigm (follow your bliss etc). I think most people who came of age in the late 70s and early 80s walk around with a Nietzche/Pirsig/Camus/Campbell paradigm in their heads! And he had a professional career fully invested in the literary model. (Plus he is quite clearly a touchy/feely literary type.) by CurtD I never thought of it before but the Nietzsche/Camus/Campbell thing was definitely influential. Edit
-
Thoughts on Peterson, Wilber, and More
Feb 18, 2020, 12:38 PM THOUGHTS ON PETERSON, WILBER, AND MORE by Michael Churchill, with CurtD Regarding Jordan Peterson and Ken Wilber: Wilber’s life arc is quite interesting and perhaps can provide a roadmap for Peterson post-nervous breakdown. Wilber was a bit of a mentor to Peterson and both men worked on the same problem: How to distinguish between internal truth and external truth:
- Internal truth is what I feel to be true (including the realm of feelings themselves).
External truth is what survives falsification in real-world tests.
Both men came to realize that the the strategy of the rank-and-file left is to deliberately conflate internal feelings and externally verifiable fact. (Hence the growth of the mantra “Well that’s my truth.”) When Wilber figured this out, he did the honorable thing and dropped out of the public eye for 5-10 years. Recall that Wilber was almost the Peterson of the ’90s: He started out a darling of the Oprah/Clinton set and was teed up to become a huge star. But two things happened: His wife got sick and his work started to lead him in disturbing, anti-left directions. So he dropped out of the spotlight. When he got back to work, Wilber embraced the implications of his own model and moved rightward. He lost his fey mannerisms and embraced the bearing of the college football player he had once been. My view is that Peterson’s nervous breakdown was caused by his failure to live up to his own extremely high standards. The man who won every debate was recently CRUSHED in a debate on his own website centering on a critical aspect of his worldview: That we are the drivers of our own destiny and group evolutionary strategy is not a relevant player in the game. (Or, more specifically, Peterson was arguing that there is no group who acts on an evolutionary strategy to deliberately undermine western civilization.) Peterson collapsed because he couldn’t escape the implications of this problem: He either had to admit defeat on this point and risk losing his empire, or accept defeat and ALSO risk losing his empire. Thus it seems the proper path for Peterson is to do what Wilber did. Drop out for five years. Recover. Re-work the model to fix its failures and keep what is good. Do not try to please the masters, nor necessarily challenge the masters in public if that doesn’t feel appealing. That is my $0.02 on the matter. by Eric Danelaw: This is a great narrative. Really has me thinking…. I wonder if you could weave campbell in there – as you suggested, as someone who didn’t have those problems. I’d throw in that the problem is jung-christianity where most of us use cognitive science and behavioral economics today. These fantasy literary worlds are disconnected from reality. He uses them because in his practice he can use suggestion rather than direct exposition to ‘seduce’ people to circumvent their natural resistance to correction by others. This is the entire value of suggestive experience (religion, theology, myth, parable, literature, history – suspension of disbelief opens us to suggestion by blame avoidance.) As for causality I’ll take peterson’s meteoric rise, continuous exposure, workload, wife’s cancer, and susceptibility to medicine as the principle cause – but I’ll agree with your consequence. Peterson wasn’t in a position where he could go thru a withdrawal that long in that condition without inflicting suffering on his family – already suffering from his wife’s cancer. And he couldn’t maintain public appearances, and he put his new found income stream at risk. And he had nowhere safe to go and recover. So that’s an awful lot sitting on your shoulders for anyone. But, what I got out of your post was … well, that it hadn’t occurred to me that i have no psychological dream world to run to so I have no psychological dream world to fail me. And that as such the stoics (mindfulness) and epicureans (live well), were simply right all along. And until you wrote this post I didn’t think that the opposite of these ideological and theological frames might be true: that they don’t provide comfort they provide sedation, so that the failure of the dream world is worse than the cost of learning mindfulness. by Michael Churchill Wow that is an awesome read. The moral of Peterson’s collapse is that building your house on a dreamworld — no matter how appealing and helpful in the short term — risks devastating consequences when it collapses. This raises the question of whether Peterson FELT he was building a house of cards as he was going along. It doesn’t seem that way to me. I watched many hours of his lectures before I ever came to your critique of him and I thought his work was pretty solid. Like his analysis of Pinnochio. That was good stuff. And his one-man war against the speech codes in Canada was inspired. Peterson’s only a few years older than me, so very likely he also grew up surrounded by the Joseph Campbell paradigm (follow your bliss etc). I think most people who came of age in the late 70s and early 80s walk around with a Nietzche/Pirsig/Camus/Campbell paradigm in their heads! And he had a professional career fully invested in the literary model. (Plus he is quite clearly a touchy/feely literary type.) by CurtD I never thought of it before but the Nietzsche/Camus/Campbell thing was definitely influential. Edit
-
All I see are women whining so that men will protect them
All I see are women whining so that men will protect them. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/all-i-see-are-women-whining-so-that-men-will-protect-them/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 22:39:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266499384168140800
-
All I see are women whining so that men will protect them.
Feb 28, 2020, 6:01 PM
–“Christians. Really, just take the reigns and rule already. I really don’t care how you do it if you’re trying. But you don’t seem to want to. So stop begging others to do it for you in the manner more to your liking without contributing to rule.”— Ospin88
This is my underlying complaint about christians. I don’t believe them. All I see are women whining so that men will protect them. There was a reason it took the viking invasion and viking warriors to conduct the crusades. There was a reason the french couldn’t resist them. Christianity has only been strong when it wailing women handkerchief that inspires and licenses aryanism (heroic, expansionist, entrepreneurial, militarism). I am not the only person to say that christianity is a means of keeping the peasants pliable and working so that the aristocracy can afford expensive weaponry. Or that the only time christian banners fly is to legitimize aryanism. I mean, what separates a christian monarchy from a kingdom? The license of the church to use violence. If christianity s strong then christian men would be the first in line rather than constitutionalists and pagans, while docile christians show up and wave flags when the hard work is done. Give me a pope who defense europen civilization not the faith. Christianity is a third world religion.
-
All I see are women whining so that men will protect them.
Feb 28, 2020, 6:01 PM
–“Christians. Really, just take the reigns and rule already. I really don’t care how you do it if you’re trying. But you don’t seem to want to. So stop begging others to do it for you in the manner more to your liking without contributing to rule.”— Ospin88
This is my underlying complaint about christians. I don’t believe them. All I see are women whining so that men will protect them. There was a reason it took the viking invasion and viking warriors to conduct the crusades. There was a reason the french couldn’t resist them. Christianity has only been strong when it wailing women handkerchief that inspires and licenses aryanism (heroic, expansionist, entrepreneurial, militarism). I am not the only person to say that christianity is a means of keeping the peasants pliable and working so that the aristocracy can afford expensive weaponry. Or that the only time christian banners fly is to legitimize aryanism. I mean, what separates a christian monarchy from a kingdom? The license of the church to use violence. If christianity s strong then christian men would be the first in line rather than constitutionalists and pagans, while docile christians show up and wave flags when the hard work is done. Give me a pope who defense europen civilization not the faith. Christianity is a third world religion.
-
Heaping of Undue Praise: All Left Political Behavior Is Female Cognitive Warfare Expression
Mar 2, 2020, 9:55 AM Heaping of Undue Praise: All Left Political Behavior Is Female Cognitive Warfare Expression
—“Heaping of undue praise, or “Praise Bombing“. Praise (love) bombing is baiting into hazard. The goal is for the target to lower their defenses. Manipulation and Betrayal only work if trust is first established.”– Andrew M Gilmour
Again, the female strategy: heaping of undue praise is how women encourage children to continue in the face of failure and adversity. That’s the positive. In the negative, it’s heaping undue praise on that which is undeserving of it, in order to undermine that which is deserving of it. in other words, the female intuition applied to the negative.
-
Heaping of Undue Praise: All Left Political Behavior Is Female Cognitive Warfare Expression
Mar 2, 2020, 9:55 AM Heaping of Undue Praise: All Left Political Behavior Is Female Cognitive Warfare Expression
—“Heaping of undue praise, or “Praise Bombing“. Praise (love) bombing is baiting into hazard. The goal is for the target to lower their defenses. Manipulation and Betrayal only work if trust is first established.”– Andrew M Gilmour
Again, the female strategy: heaping of undue praise is how women encourage children to continue in the face of failure and adversity. That’s the positive. In the negative, it’s heaping undue praise on that which is undeserving of it, in order to undermine that which is deserving of it. in other words, the female intuition applied to the negative.