THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF INFANTILIZATION VS RESPONSIBILITY
@jordanbpeterson #JordanPeterson https://t.co/nyqCPdqDZV

Source date (UTC): 2018-11-14 14:08:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062708847771553792
THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF INFANTILIZATION VS RESPONSIBILITY
@jordanbpeterson #JordanPeterson https://t.co/nyqCPdqDZV

Source date (UTC): 2018-11-14 14:08:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1062708847771553792
HEROISM AND COSTS
by Luke Weinhagen
Heroism is the application of virtue where that application has a potential direct cost to you.
It is hard to train for directly because people interpret virtue so subjectively but training the foundation, overcoming inaction in the face of costs, is something anyone can do. Expose yourself to situation where you have a strong possibility to fail. Fail. Get back up.
It is best if your parents do this for you as young as possible, but nowadays most parents don’t. So it is likely up to you.
Find something you are motivated by (so you have a reason to get back up) that also offers you the likelihood of initial failure and overextend yourself into it (ideally not something that will kill you is you are just beginning to embrace failure).
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-14 13:07:00 UTC
by Brandon Hayes
Life is only suffering for those with no (low and developing) agency. It’s the only frame that motivates them to face it (life; the suffering). One must have (develop) the capacity for heroism to withstand tragedy as a plausible noble outcome.
The world “just happens” to those that lack real consciousness. Thus they can’t perceive the responsibility they must bear.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-14 12:14:00 UTC
PETERSON IS AN INDIVIDUALIST NOT SOVEREIGNTARIAN
(a) Individual Sovereignty = Individualism in LAW (in fact) not in ‘sentiment’ or ‘moralism’. Because only individuals can act.
(b) The purpose of policy is the service of the INTERGENERATIONAL FAMILY, and NOT the individual.
This is the hole in Classical Liberalism, Liberalism and LIbertarianism, for the simple reason that “one man one vote’ meant ‘one family with property one vote’ or ‘one business man one vote’ or ‘one familial corporation one vote’, and not ‘ one individual without demonstrated ability to produce one vote’.
The priority of western civilization was and if it is to survive, must consist, in the combination of individual normative heroism, individual legal sovereignty, and the policy that gives all possible advantages to each individual intergenerational family, in its production of individual sovereigns.
The word “individualism” masks this difference.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-14 12:13:00 UTC
https://www.amazon.com/Economic-Approach-Human-Behavior/dp/0226041123THE ECONOMIC APPROACH TO HUMAN BEHAVIOR
You know, it’s so much a part of my cognition that I forget to mention it. But this book framed my thinking about social science more so than any other. I think in the Becker model. Ostrom just helps with extending the Becker model into commons.
The “minds” that I imitate (make use of constantly) are Becker, Hayek, Hoppe, Popper, Turing-Chomsky, (the outlier is Hoppe (property) which is what the rest are missing), with Jeff Hawkins’s work on intelligence ( already having come true), and Baron Cohen’s so obvious, it’s coming true daily in the research. The Nietzsche I rely on is Birth of Tragedy. Someone will skewer me for this but his fundamental insight was produce there, and all else is application of it. Step back to the beginning again, and grasp that I studied history, art history, and military history first before any of this, and the sequence of aggregate behavior down to neurological processing is a completely coherent and consistent series of ideas.
https://www.amazon.com/Economic-Approach-Human-Behavior/dp/0226041123
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-14 11:56:00 UTC
JOHN MARK: MEASURING OTHERS’ PROGRESS IN THE JOURNEY
That spectrum/journey is the journey from hope in the ability to teach/shame/influence people into acting in a responsible and beneficial (reciprocal) manner (in accordance with natural law), to realizing that only the law (violence or threat of it) can do that.
Now that I see it, I see it everywhere. So often I see people saying things like “The solution is for people to realize that (xyz)…” or “The solution is we have to teach people that (xyz)…” I recognize instantly that they are not far enough along on the spectrum/journey. –John Mark
— He’s Referring to this —
THE ARISTOCRATIC (RESPONSIBILITY) SALES FUNNEL
All of the people who start out edgy, tend to move back up the sales funnel (wider audience) because they perceive they are doing more good with wider reach, by driving more people into the sales funnel.
Everyone has to move thu the ‘sales funnel’ from well meaning fool to man of agency.
I did it and it sure seems like most other men do.
“Nice Person” > Social Democracy > Classical Liberalism > Libertarianism > anarcho capitalism > Neo Reaction > Propertarianism > (some version of , fuck it, let’s just impose it.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-14 11:40:00 UTC
COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY
What degree of indirection is required in order to produce new networks (routes) that attached different weights (emotions, values) to the same (similar) phenomenon?
EXPERIENTIAL TERMS (Neurological)
“Just tell me”
“Just show me “
“let me have a little distance, so I can learn by analogy”
“I can’t go anywhere near it, so I have to learn ENTIRELY by suggestion.”
LOGICAL TERMS
Some things are self evident. (just tell me)
Some requires a bit of analysis (just show me)
Some requires some deduction (just let me have distance…)
Some requires inference. (can’t go there, need suggestion….)
MATHEMATICAL TERMS
Numbers
Addition
Geometry
Algebraic Geometry
Same problem. Same Solution.
Literary suggestion using archetypes combines the possibility of SUGGESTION combined with SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF,
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-14 10:26:00 UTC
PETERSON’S FUNCTION IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY
Peterson is a clinical psychologist (cognitive behavioral therapist), and his research includes the impact of personality traits on individual and group behavior. His work (authorship) is largely an attempt (knowingly or not) to restore Stoicism. He has (successfully) identified the relationship between jungian categories and literary archetypes and uses those narratives just as the priesthood has, to teach therapeutic concepts by suggestion rather than CBT’s direct exposure. (I am less interested in this technique for therapy but an advocate for its use in teaching (pedagogy) in the first place – since universal prevention eliminate most of the need for therapeutic correction.) So he is providing Stoicism without (a) social separatism, and (b) the ‘woo’ factor. Even if he is providing it (c) for therapeutic and self improvement use, rather than (d) a program for restoring western civilization from the INFANTILIZATION MOVEMENT we call marxism-postmodernism-feminism. There is a worldwide demand for Stoicism because we have almost (finally) restored the level of civilization achieved by the late Empire before the Abrahamic Dark Age. And once we understand institutional restoration required until the age of napoleon, and intellectual restoration until the 2000s, that abrahamic dark age was TWICE as devastating as the first: the Bronze Age Collapse.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-14 09:25:00 UTC
Anyway, you asked, I’ll repeat it again….
EIther make an argument against my proposition or stop wasting my time.
1) We lack agency. Our genes provide intuitionistic decidability. That intuitionistic decidability in matters of cooperation can be expressed on a spectrum from psychotic and solipsistic to ‘normie’ to analytic and autistic. This spectrum describes the differences in male and female brain structures (see Baron Cohen.). We assume we are making choices but we are not. We are merely following instinct. In this distribution the male and female brains produce biases that reflect their caloric and reproductive demands, with female the herd,r,offspring, and male,k,pack and this measurement shows up in all aspects of life from METHOD OF SPEECH, content of gossip, chatter, and banter, selection of terms, means of argument, value judgements, personality profile differences, job selection, time allocation, consumer product purchases, voting records. However, given the industrial technological era, and the independence of females from demand for male income we are seeing demand for ‘fulfillment’ (divergence) in not only gender preferences (toward the extremes) but in class and reproductive preferences (insurance from risk, vs achievement liberty). The more equal the more we diverge in demand for fulfillment of our reproductive strategies. At present we have those of us who prefer to separate from those of you. We experience you as ‘disgusting’ whereas you see fear we see disgust. This is because you are setting off our ‘harm to the tribe’ response. This is also genetic on our end. Truth, Loyalty, Purity are all anti-disgust demands. So in our perception of the world, you are not fully human, but simply semi-domesticated animals that can speak. We do not say this but it is how we perceive you. So we prefer to satisfy our disgust response they way you want to satisfy your fear of being left behind response, and separate from you. The alternative is warfare. Which is frankly more desirable but less profitable.
2) Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy, nationalism the optimum means of protecting it, nomocracy and markets in everything, the optimum means of political order to achieving it, and soft eugenics (regulating underclass rates of reproduction) a necessity of defeating regression to the mean, such that demographics correspond to states of development rather than regress the standards of living, because together they produce rates of adaptation faster than all possible alternatives.
The mediocre seek safety in the herd and speech and defense from the pack. The exceptional seek achievement and action – and to leave its dead weight behind.
We can afford to speciate by reproductive strategy. You and yours are welcome to speciate by your preferred means, if me and mine are by our preferred means. That is reciprocity. If we cannot agree to reciprocity, then defeat, conquest, enserfment, enslavement, and extermination are preferable to loss.
The Herd seeks equality, proportionality, and the Pack hierarchy and reciprocity. These are genetic and therefore intuitionistic and pre-cognitive expressions of fitness for social orders.
So we can Revolt, Separate, Prosper (or not), and Speciate or we can war. The coming civil war is not over race – it is over our new found wealth sufficient to speciate. Or in historical terms, we continue the conflict between masculine indo-european-asian and feminine anatolian-semitic-afro-asiatic.
This means that we have the opportunity to exit the unfit from our order, and the undesirable from yours.
Or we have the opportunity to have the bloodiest conflict in human history – and one that it is very hard to imagine the ‘right’ will not win.
The people who talk, teach, and preach, vs the people who act, produce, and invent.
If this isn’t acceptable to your and yours, then enemies you choose to be.
So, this is why we must separate.
We don’t need to agree.
It’s just going to happen.
So the question is only how unpleasant it will be.
3) We want separation. We don’t want cooperation or balance when the other side daily engages in hate speech against me, my people, my civilization and advocates for our eradication, and the browning of the country in order to exterminate us. SO no. You don’t compromise with those who want genocide —- YOU RETURN THE SAME.
We don’t WANT YOU AT ALL. You are disgusting. Really. you ruin everything. Our neighborhoods, our schools, our history, our education, our governments, our city streets, our parks, our stores, our religion, our festivals, are armies, or civic order, even our gene pool… .. I mean…. you’re just bad people. We don’t want you. You are like locusts that consume everything beautiful. You are a plague against our people, our civilization, and the efforts of our ancestors. So no. We don’t need you. CIvilizations prosper most by getting rid of the underclass through prosecution and harsh winter starvation. And the fewer of you the better for us and for the planet, and for the future of mankind. You are a living breathing waste of the planet and mankind’s potential.
We want to ‘leave you behind’.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-13 11:43:00 UTC
THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT
1) We lack agency. Our genes provide intuitionistic decidability. That intuitionistic decidability in matters of cooperation can be expressed on a spectrum from psychotic and solipsistic to ‘normie’ to analytic and autistic. This spectrum describes the differences in male and female brain structures (see Baron Cohen.). We assume we are making choices but we are not. We are merely following instinct. In this distribution the male and female brains produce biases that reflect their caloric and reproductive demands, with female the herd,r,offspring, and male,k,pack and this measurement shows up in all aspects of life from METHOD OF SPEECH, content of gossip, chatter, and banter, selection of terms, means of argument, value judgements, personality profile differences, job selection, time allocation, consumer product purchases, voting records.
However, given the industrial technological era, and the independence of females from demand for male income we are seeing demand for ‘fulfillment’ (divergence) in not only gender preferences (toward the extremes) but in class and reproductive preferences (insurance from risk, vs achievement liberty). The more equal the more we diverge in demand for fulfillment of our reproductive strategies. At present we have those of us who prefer to separate from those of you.
We experience you as ‘disgusting’ whereas you see fear we see disgust. This is because you are setting off our ‘harm to the tribe’ response. This is also genetic on our end. Truth, Loyalty, Purity are all anti-disgust demands.
So in our perception of the world, you are not fully human, but simply semi-domesticated animals that can speak. We do not say this but it is how we perceive you. So we prefer to satisfy our disgust response they way you want to satisfy your fear of being left behind response, and separate from you.
The alternative is warfare. Which is frankly more desirable but less profitable.
2) Ethnocentrism is the optimum group evolutionary strategy, nationalism the optimum means of protecting it, nomocracy and markets in everything, the optimum means of political order to achieving it, and soft eugenics (regulating underclass rates of reproduction) a necessity of defeating regression to the mean, such that demographics correspond to states of development rather than regress the standards of living, because together they produce rates of adaptation faster than all possible alternatives.
The mediocre seek safety in the herd and speech and defense from the pack. The exceptional seek achievement and action – and to leave its dead weight behind.
We can afford to speciate by reproductive strategy. You and yours are welcome to speciate by your preferred means, if me and mine are by our preferred means. That is reciprocity. If we cannot agree to reciprocity, then defeat, conquest, enserfment, enslavement, and extermination are preferable to loss.
The Herd seeks equality, proportionality, and the Pack hierarchy and reciprocity. These are genetic and therefore intuitionistic and pre-cognitive expressions of fitness for social orders.
So we can Revolt, Separate, Prosper (or not), and Speciate or we can war. The coming civil war is not over race – it is over our new found wealth sufficient to speciate. Or in historical terms, we continue the conflict between masculine indo-european-asian and feminine anatolian-semitic-afro-asiatic.
This means that we have the opportunity to exit the unfit from our order, and the undesirable from yours.
Or we have the opportunity to have the bloodiest conflict in human history – and one that it is very hard to imagine the ‘right’ will not win.
The people who talk, teach, and preach, vs the people who act, produce, and invent.
If this isn’t acceptable to your and yours, then enemies you choose to be.
So, this is why we must separate.
We don’t need to agree.
It’s just going to happen.
So the question is only how unpleasant it will be.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-13 10:27:00 UTC