Too young. Don’t waste it. If you’re competent the world is full of people who need leaders to succeed. It’s sort of immoral to leave them without it. -cheers. 😉
10 companies. Mostly tech. Mostly Seattle.
One still cooking.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-10 19:31:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1237461075244781569
Reply addressees: @just_lbs @iamthechair1 @realDonaldTrump
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1237457377735122945
When women complain about working with males they’re complaining (aggression) about men’s use of dominance expression while not complaining about women’s use of dominance expression (undermining).
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-06 21:01:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1236034212525981696
Reply addressees: @party_blanket @90_guillem
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1235982603683074049
Feminine brain structure (bias verbal, experiential, in time) vs masculine brain structure (bias physical, action, over time). Look at male vs female writers in any subject.
Compare a female tv anchor and male talking head. Then at WRITING and RESEARCH by the right vs the left.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-03 15:02:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234856557948567553
Reply addressees: @90_guillem
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234849815911174155
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. ===
Ryan Drummond From a mother to her child, it’s a good thing as long as it doesn’t induce narcissism in the child. In the realm of politics, education, the state, or anything that expands beyond the closed family circle, it is absolutely dangerous. Risking narcissism to one child through misguided motherhood is…managable, because it is just one input that doesn’t hold THAT much weight (beyond the family circle). Risking that narcissism penetrating the volksgeist, through the input of organisations or governments seen as powerful, can simply cause the fall of civilisations. Andrew M Gilmour Genuine praise vs fraudulent praise. Andrew Spivak Conservatives do this appeal to vanity too when you try to argue for positions or actions that would actually be effective. “You’re better than that”. Patrick Smyth This is why I would prefer that boys be educated by men rather than women. I anticipate that we could get rid of a lot of the entitlement issues young people tend to have now if people aren’t educated solely by indulgent females.
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. ===
Ryan Drummond From a mother to her child, it’s a good thing as long as it doesn’t induce narcissism in the child. In the realm of politics, education, the state, or anything that expands beyond the closed family circle, it is absolutely dangerous. Risking narcissism to one child through misguided motherhood is…managable, because it is just one input that doesn’t hold THAT much weight (beyond the family circle). Risking that narcissism penetrating the volksgeist, through the input of organisations or governments seen as powerful, can simply cause the fall of civilisations. Andrew M Gilmour Genuine praise vs fraudulent praise. Andrew Spivak Conservatives do this appeal to vanity too when you try to argue for positions or actions that would actually be effective. “You’re better than that”. Patrick Smyth This is why I would prefer that boys be educated by men rather than women. I anticipate that we could get rid of a lot of the entitlement issues young people tend to have now if people aren’t educated solely by indulgent females.
CRIMINALITY IS GENETIC AND DYSGENIA IS AN INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE
—“No. Steven Pinker explained this very well. If parenting had an effect at all, it would turn up in the shared environment. It doesn’t.”—JayMan @JayMan471 —“How do you explain single mothers parenting vastly increasing incarceration and unsocial behaviour.”— tweeter
1) Mothers do not remarry(control, infantilization) or permit others to parent, fathers do. 2) Single mothers don’t cohabit with grandparents as substitute. 3) Single mothers transfer insecurity to children (instability) 4) Increase in female psychosis under feminism. Tolerance?
—“None of those things.”—JayMan@JayMan471
What is it instead? 😉 because those things compensated for class (genetic) differences. Which is what I assume you’re going to say. Add: 5) school environment exacerbates. 6) pharmaceuticals (and drugs) exacerbate. 7) recent evidence (female) social media. 8) increase in under-lower class size. So, one can say: 9) increase in anti social behavior. 10) increase in population with it. 11) increase prosecution of it. Edit: ( 11a. in class sortition bc of colleges, and concentrating dysgenia at the bottom – this one is important. ) or 12) decrease in institutional means of compensating for it, suppressing it, and preventing it with marriage, family, community, norm, tradition, and institution. And we can frame the question: (a) are we more aware of it? (b) is there more of it (decline)? (c) are there more people biasing it (population)? (d) are informal and formal institutions no longer controlling it? (e) environmental factors (as w/ lead) (f) all of the above. I read the same papers everyone else does. the disputes are generally categorized as misinterpretation of the top down correlative and categorical; bottom up constructive and individual; and incentives in the constructive that test both. Unfortunately, full accounting is rare. So, to deal with pinker’s assertion that it’s purely genetic, sure. The question then is whether we are just more aware of it, just prosecute it more, increasing dysgenia, or we are failing to mask it with institutions. ie: My original comment’s suggestion: institutions failing. And again, when Jayman disagrees with me it’s because he jumps to the conclusion that I’m making an argument that I am not. 😉 The argument is: Institutional failure. Because dysgenia at present is caused by institutional failure. All of these causes are institutional failures.
CRIMINALITY IS GENETIC AND DYSGENIA IS AN INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE
—“No. Steven Pinker explained this very well. If parenting had an effect at all, it would turn up in the shared environment. It doesn’t.”—JayMan @JayMan471 —“How do you explain single mothers parenting vastly increasing incarceration and unsocial behaviour.”— tweeter
1) Mothers do not remarry(control, infantilization) or permit others to parent, fathers do. 2) Single mothers don’t cohabit with grandparents as substitute. 3) Single mothers transfer insecurity to children (instability) 4) Increase in female psychosis under feminism. Tolerance?
—“None of those things.”—JayMan@JayMan471
What is it instead? 😉 because those things compensated for class (genetic) differences. Which is what I assume you’re going to say. Add: 5) school environment exacerbates. 6) pharmaceuticals (and drugs) exacerbate. 7) recent evidence (female) social media. 8) increase in under-lower class size. So, one can say: 9) increase in anti social behavior. 10) increase in population with it. 11) increase prosecution of it. Edit: ( 11a. in class sortition bc of colleges, and concentrating dysgenia at the bottom – this one is important. ) or 12) decrease in institutional means of compensating for it, suppressing it, and preventing it with marriage, family, community, norm, tradition, and institution. And we can frame the question: (a) are we more aware of it? (b) is there more of it (decline)? (c) are there more people biasing it (population)? (d) are informal and formal institutions no longer controlling it? (e) environmental factors (as w/ lead) (f) all of the above. I read the same papers everyone else does. the disputes are generally categorized as misinterpretation of the top down correlative and categorical; bottom up constructive and individual; and incentives in the constructive that test both. Unfortunately, full accounting is rare. So, to deal with pinker’s assertion that it’s purely genetic, sure. The question then is whether we are just more aware of it, just prosecute it more, increasing dysgenia, or we are failing to mask it with institutions. ie: My original comment’s suggestion: institutions failing. And again, when Jayman disagrees with me it’s because he jumps to the conclusion that I’m making an argument that I am not. 😉 The argument is: Institutional failure. Because dysgenia at present is caused by institutional failure. All of these causes are institutional failures.
Brandon Hayes Follow some P members, and use the “see first” Friendship or Follow option. Read the posts daily. Most of what you see you won’t be able to unsee. Meaning you’ll have know it to be true but never had the words to articulate it. Share those posts that gift you clearer frames; The ones that give you the “aha” moments. Re-phrase the frame in common vernacular as to be able to explain it to friends face-to-face. The technical arguments irritate many (they ought to; you’ve been lied to); the practical knowledge however is always received kindly. Mike Emmons I get a lot of knowledge and clarity from following y’all. Perspectives and wisdom I’ll never find anywhere else. Still learning methodology. Well worth the time I think. Bill ‘s and John ‘s vids are very helpful. (John’s last one [Constitution] knocked it out of the park). Daniel Roland Anderson And look up new words, or P-specific words. Identify Curt’s neologisms. Turns out, knowing what other people mean is important. Ross Lampers Learn that Curt deserves the benefit of the doubt like 100% of the time, or else assume you’ve misunderstood him Lol Luke Weinhagen . First competence (consume P accurately) Then expertise (produce P accurately) Then craftsmanship (produce accurate P that survives markets) Then mastery (complete integration of methodology into self) I want to see hundreds of craftsmen bringing P to hundreds of markets. Maintaining accuracy while doing this – “Re-phrase the frame in common vernacular as to be able to explain it to friends face-to-face.” – Own your P frame and lead your market to it. Adam Jacob Robert Walker I think I learned a lot from trying to explain it to others irl. When they didn’t understand, I’d go back, make sure I understood it, improve where needed, then come back with a reframing, then repeat. Luke Weinhagen Absolutely. Same for me. I enjoy the long form discussion and argument we use to learn and build and test P. But it is the ability to strip it down and bring it to an audience that dictates our results. Whether we are a hobby or a solution. That is the dance between expertise and craftsmanship. Adam Jacob Robert Walker This is what I’m starving for, the long form arg with people like us, not the “normies”. I think Ive got an optimum amount of value from discussing with outsiders to us that I could possibly gain, relatively. Now I’m starving for the long form discussions with people like us, the “insiders”. I have this wonderful frame, and everything makes so much sense. Now, it’s like…what’s left. What’s left to talk about, that hasn’t already been covered extensively by either curt or one from our pack. I’ve got writers block on what to focus on in order to produce and add value to the rest of the movement. Luke Weinhagen Totally understand that. I found P in December of 2016 and probably spent the next 2 years just learning it, responding to Curt’s posts, and those of the other guys, and getting my face pounded as my sacred cows died. It was great and that model holds much value for me. But it does not serve most of the audiences I speak into. I can not bring long form P posts to work or to family or friends. I can not bring long form P posts into local politics. Those are my markets at the moment. So for me to add value to P at the moment, I have to find ways to take a 15 paragraph P concept and convey it in 5 sentences or less (exaggerating, but you get what I mean I hope) that are consumable by my markets. This is why you see me practicing condensations of the concepts in public threads and on my timeline. Anyone and everyone can add value to P by bringing P to their markets/audiences. Adam Jacob Robert Walker This matches my experience. Now, I want to go deeper and it’s like I need the experts to bounce ideas off of irl, not just people who don’t know. I can teach to newbs, given enough time and considering the material is graspable (within their limits to understand). TEACH P BY EXAMPLE (From request via twitter) Pick a topic of interest to you (problem, solution). You’ll do better with whatever is interesting to you. And the public will prefer listening to solutions. Search the P-site for articles on that topic and read as many as you can until you feel you ‘get it’. Usually that’s like ten. Address something about the topic(problem, solution) in your own words. Include the minimum quote, aphorism, definition, or series that brings certainty. Write a script. Pass the script by me, Martin, Brandon, or the other folks for error-checking.
Brandon Hayes Follow some P members, and use the “see first” Friendship or Follow option. Read the posts daily. Most of what you see you won’t be able to unsee. Meaning you’ll have know it to be true but never had the words to articulate it. Share those posts that gift you clearer frames; The ones that give you the “aha” moments. Re-phrase the frame in common vernacular as to be able to explain it to friends face-to-face. The technical arguments irritate many (they ought to; you’ve been lied to); the practical knowledge however is always received kindly. Mike Emmons I get a lot of knowledge and clarity from following y’all. Perspectives and wisdom I’ll never find anywhere else. Still learning methodology. Well worth the time I think. Bill ‘s and John ‘s vids are very helpful. (John’s last one [Constitution] knocked it out of the park). Daniel Roland Anderson And look up new words, or P-specific words. Identify Curt’s neologisms. Turns out, knowing what other people mean is important. Ross Lampers Learn that Curt deserves the benefit of the doubt like 100% of the time, or else assume you’ve misunderstood him Lol Luke Weinhagen . First competence (consume P accurately) Then expertise (produce P accurately) Then craftsmanship (produce accurate P that survives markets) Then mastery (complete integration of methodology into self) I want to see hundreds of craftsmen bringing P to hundreds of markets. Maintaining accuracy while doing this – “Re-phrase the frame in common vernacular as to be able to explain it to friends face-to-face.” – Own your P frame and lead your market to it. Adam Jacob Robert Walker I think I learned a lot from trying to explain it to others irl. When they didn’t understand, I’d go back, make sure I understood it, improve where needed, then come back with a reframing, then repeat. Luke Weinhagen Absolutely. Same for me. I enjoy the long form discussion and argument we use to learn and build and test P. But it is the ability to strip it down and bring it to an audience that dictates our results. Whether we are a hobby or a solution. That is the dance between expertise and craftsmanship. Adam Jacob Robert Walker This is what I’m starving for, the long form arg with people like us, not the “normies”. I think Ive got an optimum amount of value from discussing with outsiders to us that I could possibly gain, relatively. Now I’m starving for the long form discussions with people like us, the “insiders”. I have this wonderful frame, and everything makes so much sense. Now, it’s like…what’s left. What’s left to talk about, that hasn’t already been covered extensively by either curt or one from our pack. I’ve got writers block on what to focus on in order to produce and add value to the rest of the movement. Luke Weinhagen Totally understand that. I found P in December of 2016 and probably spent the next 2 years just learning it, responding to Curt’s posts, and those of the other guys, and getting my face pounded as my sacred cows died. It was great and that model holds much value for me. But it does not serve most of the audiences I speak into. I can not bring long form P posts to work or to family or friends. I can not bring long form P posts into local politics. Those are my markets at the moment. So for me to add value to P at the moment, I have to find ways to take a 15 paragraph P concept and convey it in 5 sentences or less (exaggerating, but you get what I mean I hope) that are consumable by my markets. This is why you see me practicing condensations of the concepts in public threads and on my timeline. Anyone and everyone can add value to P by bringing P to their markets/audiences. Adam Jacob Robert Walker This matches my experience. Now, I want to go deeper and it’s like I need the experts to bounce ideas off of irl, not just people who don’t know. I can teach to newbs, given enough time and considering the material is graspable (within their limits to understand). TEACH P BY EXAMPLE (From request via twitter) Pick a topic of interest to you (problem, solution). You’ll do better with whatever is interesting to you. And the public will prefer listening to solutions. Search the P-site for articles on that topic and read as many as you can until you feel you ‘get it’. Usually that’s like ten. Address something about the topic(problem, solution) in your own words. Include the minimum quote, aphorism, definition, or series that brings certainty. Write a script. Pass the script by me, Martin, Brandon, or the other folks for error-checking.
“ABRAHAMISM SHOULD BE CALLED HUMAN NATURE?”
—“You talk around the issue rather than the issue it self, what you call abrahamism should be called human nature, it rests in each of us and we have the choice to choose which side we feed, what i love about p is it spells out the law to where no one can wiggle around it, the thing i hate about p is yall talk yourselves out of it.”— Justin Coone
Everything humans do is human nature. Math, science, engineering, medicine, law and economics are human constructs: systems of reasoning that describe the world. Aristotelianism, Platonism, Confucianism, Abrahamism and less so Buddhism and Hinduism are systems of reasoning (logic in the lesser sense), that persist group strategies. The question is why europeans developed Math, science, engineering, medicine, law and economics and other people developed judaism, christianity, islam, and marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and universalism. Group strategy. That said, we can use the law to peacefully suppress the use of science to create physical weapons of mass destruction, and suppress the use of abrahamism to create informational weapons of mass destruction. Using P-Law we can create heterogeneous or homogenous localities, counties, and states to serve the wants of any and all. And the markets will justify or falsify our ‘theories of social organization.’ We just can’t lie about it. And we don’t need to have a civil war to see who wins. P-law is the solution.