Theme: Agency

  • I will come to one in new england. But I won’t start one. If I start one it take

    I will come to one in new england. But I won’t start one. If I start one it takes the initiative from others.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-17 15:01:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085914897785991168

    Reply addressees: @NealMadison5

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085896017088634886


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085896017088634886

  • We don’t let children play with matches, and we shouldn’t let those lacking agen

    We don’t let children play with matches, and we shouldn’t let those lacking agency play with government.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-17 14:17:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085904006252281856

  • We don’t let children play with matches, and we shouldn’t let those lacking agen

    We don’t let children play with matches, and we shouldn’t let those lacking agency play with government, which is the biggest matchbox of all.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-17 09:17:00 UTC

  • “Well jewish novelty seeking and female novelty seeking are the same, right? I t

    —“Well jewish novelty seeking and female novelty seeking are the same, right? I think men are heroism seeking.”—

    These two directions exploit different opportunities.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-17 03:40:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085743651559489536

  • THE DEEPEST INSIGHT –“Seeing the world without the need for a moralistic overla

    THE DEEPEST INSIGHT

    –“Seeing the world without the need for a moralistic overlay, since the morality is indelibly in my heart already (and for those who lack it, it can’t be taught), and the truth is enough.”–


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-16 12:37:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1085516389899821057

  • THE DEEPEST INSIGHT –“Seeing the world without the need for a moralistic overla

    THE DEEPEST INSIGHT

    –“Seeing the world without the need for a moralistic overlay, since the morality is indelibly in my heart already (and for those who lack it, it can’t be taught), and the truth is enough.”–


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-16 07:37:00 UTC

  • Yes, conservatives(empiricists) have a higher level of disgust sensitivity. Cons

    Yes, conservatives(empiricists) have a higher level of disgust sensitivity. Conservatives are the population’s means of detecting and purging harm – the white blood cells of the social order and polity. Progressives (consumptivists) have low sensitivity to disgust, but high demand for consumption, novelty, experience, and fear of being ‘left behind’.

    That does not mean that our disgust sensitivity is always right. It means that we must test whether than harm actually exists by propertarian means.

    Obviously in pedophilia it does. In homosexuality, other than keeping it out of the commons, I don’t see how it does.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 12:34:00 UTC

  • AGENCY AND INTENTIONALITY by Bill Joslin (important concept)(core) (comments by

    AGENCY AND INTENTIONALITY

    by Bill Joslin

    (important concept)(core) (comments by CurtD)

    Test of Agency does not require intention (i.e. it’s not a synonym for free-will).

    Agency, in the context of biological and chemistry does not imply or require intentionality. i.e. “The active agent in soap is lye”

    This might clarify why the sociological definition of Agency, that being an actor’s ability to act outside of influences of Structure, is flawed (it presumes intentionality exists as a necessary component of agency i.e. acts of free will unfettered by structure)

    My stance regarding agency is simply this:

    ***…the ability to cause an effect….***

    (CurtD: Traditional definition of power, is “the ability to alter the probability of outcomes.”)

    In this context, structural influences can be the very means by which agency emerges and increases (rather then being distinguished apart from it)

    From here: the issue we are discussing when discussing limitations to agency within a sociology context relates to other actors (individual or institutional) which act in opposition to other agents.

    Thus my definition of AUTONOMY as being free from imposition upon one’s agency BY OTHER ACTORS. (Rather then natural or structural limitations to agency).

    Intentionality remains a subset of agency in this regards. Not a necessary component.

    (CurtD: Via Positiva Agency and Via Negativa Autonomy produce market competition for action. Intention (subjective value) is not relevant to the facts of ones agency and one’s autonomy)

    For example: in law intention is not the primary means by which guilt is established. There are circumstances where intention is not relevant i.e. manslaughter, criminal neglect etc.

    (CurtD: In law we test for due diligence and liability and intent to commit a crime only tangentially. In other words we separate the TRUTH (due diligence and liability), from what is MORAL (intent).)

    So for instance, the impact on society from a low IQ cohort is not a matter of lacking agency, but rather that their aggregate agency constitutes a net negative – their combined effect being a result of their agency, regardless of intentionality or deliberateness of their actions- no agency, no effect – no intentionality yet the effect remains.

    (CurtD: people do not need to intend harm to cause harm. When they cause harm by lack of due diligence, or intent, then THEY are to blame. But if they lack the AGENCY then WE are to blame for not constraining the harm that they can do.)

    It’s is precisely because of their agency that we seek constraints. Why? Because their agency imposes upon other actors resulting in a net drain on the agency of the group as a whole…. Thus autonomy being the measure of decidability.

    Why is this important?

    Because for laws, social norms etc, we are constructing structural limitations upon agents, to constrain their effects from being damaging (regardless of whether they intend it or not).

    In other words we are addressing their agency, their ability to cause an effect – regardless of their intentional choice.

    So how do these structural constraints NOT constitute an imposition upon their agency? 1) via negativa 2) not compelled.

    You are free to break the law (act outside the constraint) but not free from the consequences. The potential to act remains un-imposed upon. This is very different than imposing upon agency to prevent the acts from taking place. I.e. compelled behaviour. Compelled behavior being a defining quality of dystopian nightmares.

    Now extrapolated this to our current situations of sin taxes, compelled speech laws, deplatforming etc. These are all forms of prescriptive application of structural constraints i.e. impositions upon agency…

    (CurtD: this is the difference between moral blame and criminal blame, and humans being what we are, conflate ‘wrongness’ of different sorts, and blame of different persons when we sense ‘wrongness’. Then as we are perpetual victims of our tendency for conflation we use terms with specific meaning (moral, lawful, truthful, logical, reasonable etc to load and frame rather than to deflate and test.)

    -Bill Joslin


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-15 11:57:00 UTC

  • by Bill Joslin Compatiblism – degrees of bounded freedom. It’s about accounting

    by Bill Joslin

    Compatiblism – degrees of bounded freedom.

    It’s about accounting for the causal chain and if the actor contributes to the causal chain (opposed to a causal chain being proof of no will). We can contribute to our causal chain because we can imagine alternate states of affairs. In that imagining we affect the causal chain.

    So the effect of that imagining will be varied. You can imagine via nonsense or reason – post-structuralism or post-positivism, mysticism or naturalism.

    You can chose, but you can’t avoid the consequences of that choice, no matter how much you imagine the state of affairs to be different than it actually is.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 09:20:00 UTC

  • Cooperation is the first resource. Status is the first purpose. Reproductive cho

    Cooperation is the first resource. Status is the first purpose. Reproductive choice the next.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-12 00:49:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083888686054498304

    Reply addressees: @torinmccabe @Imperius__13 @MatthausAnsatz @DataDistribute @JohnMarkSays @MahmoudZaini @TrueDilTom @Dick71224996

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083887115832868864


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083887115832868864