Theme: Agency

  • “Are you in favor of arranged marriages? I am, but I would love to hear your tak

    —“Are you in favor of arranged marriages? I am, but I would love to hear your take”— Erik Lukovsky

    Um. No, because I am not in favor of selling children into slavery for money which is what occurs all too often.

    What I prefer is veto of proposal on grounds of insufficient demonstration of compatibility and merit to produce a home, income, and support of children for those under a certain age.

    I am also in favor of parental monetary contribution to setting up a household and the near elimination of the marriage ‘celebration’ entirely, which has become an absurd debt with which to start a family.

    via-negativa in all things.

    There are too many malincentives at present: delayed childhood and its suppression of socialization and mating rituals.

    Delayed childhood and it’s suppression of work experience in the service of others, and work experience in the generation of trades.

    The deprivation of the young from income from labor such that they accumulate demand for consumption during the period where they wish to do the most exploration and signaling and mating rituals.

    The issue of credit to the young who then indebt themselves. the issue of debilitating student loans to the young who then further indebt themselves, the combination of which is to spend the most fertile years at play rather than familial production.

    The issue of housing interest such that it is almost impossible to pay for a home within the first generation of children, thereby freeing the parents to assist the next generation and save for retirement once the children are grown.

    The issue of high taxation such that two incomes are necessary for the production of a household, rather than a second income for the purpose of extra entertainment and socialization.

    Other people’s engagement is the optimum consumer good. The problem is sortition such that we can engage peers, and separate from inhibitors to our socialization.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-16 11:13:00 UTC

  • September 16th, 2018 12:53 PM [W]e don’t really use the term ‘Free Will’, becaus

    September 16th, 2018 12:53 PM

    [W]e don’t really use the term ‘Free Will’, because it is an ideal, and so tainted that it’s meaningless. We use the terms Agency (via positiva) and Sovereignty (via negativa) and Reciprocity (via voluntary, productive), and we state operationally what those mean.

  • September 16th, 2018 12:53 PM [W]e don’t really use the term ‘Free Will’, becaus

    September 16th, 2018 12:53 PM

    [W]e don’t really use the term ‘Free Will’, because it is an ideal, and so tainted that it’s meaningless. We use the terms Agency (via positiva) and Sovereignty (via negativa) and Reciprocity (via voluntary, productive), and we state operationally what those mean.

  • September 16th, 2018 11:13 AM —“Are you in favor of arranged marriages? I am,

    September 16th, 2018 11:13 AM

    —“Are you in favor of arranged marriages? I am, but I would love to hear your take”— Erik Lukovsky

    [N]o, because I am not in favor of selling children into slavery for money which is what occurs all too often. What I prefer is veto of proposal on grounds of insufficient demonstration of compatibility and merit to produce a home, income, and support of children for those under a certain age. I am also in favor of parental monetary contribution to setting up a household and the near elimination of the marriage ‘celebration’ entirely, which has become an absurd debt with which to start a family. via-negativa in all things. There are too many malincentives at present: delayed childhood and its suppression of socialization and mating rituals. Delayed childhood and it’s suppression of work experience in the service of others, and work experience in the generation of trades. The deprivation of the young from income from labor such that they accumulate demand for consumption during the period where they wish to do the most exploration and signaling and mating rituals. The issue of credit to the young who then indebt themselves. the issue of debilitating student loans to the young who then further indebt themselves, the combination of which is to spend the most fertile years at play rather than familial production. The issue of housing interest such that it is almost impossible to pay for a home within the first generation of children, thereby freeing the parents to assist the next generation and save for retirement once the children are grown. The issue of high taxation such that two incomes are necessary for the production of a household, rather than a second income for the purpose of extra entertainment and socialization. Other people’s engagement is the optimum consumer good. The problem is sortition such that we can engage peers, and separate from inhibitors to our socialization.

  • Differences Are in Cognitive Load

    AGAIN, ALL STEREOTYPES ARE TRUE. BUT AS I’VE SAID THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES ARE IN COGNITIVE LOAD OF PERSONALITY TRAIT, NOT TRAIT DIFFERENCES, AND ERGO – SIZE OF UNDERCLASSES. —“there are no differences between Blacks and Whites on four of the seven personality constructs. Blacks are slightly more extroverted and emotionally stable, and Whites are slightly more agreeable. … (but) differences in the Big 5 are moderated by the cognitive loading of the personality scales.”— Tate and McDaniel [1]

  • Differences Are in Cognitive Load

    AGAIN, ALL STEREOTYPES ARE TRUE. BUT AS I’VE SAID THE MAJOR DIFFERENCES ARE IN COGNITIVE LOAD OF PERSONALITY TRAIT, NOT TRAIT DIFFERENCES, AND ERGO – SIZE OF UNDERCLASSES. —“there are no differences between Blacks and Whites on four of the seven personality constructs. Blacks are slightly more extroverted and emotionally stable, and Whites are slightly more agreeable. … (but) differences in the Big 5 are moderated by the cognitive loading of the personality scales.”— Tate and McDaniel [1]

  • it simply restates the general finding that brain structure and behavior are rel

    it simply restates the general finding that brain structure and behavior are related, and in this case six significant dimensions were found. AFAIK cognitive variation consists in male-female brain differences, degree of neoteny, and related reward systems.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-13 06:12:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1040121101844717568

    Reply addressees: @charlesmurray

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1039549588166852613


    IN REPLY TO:

    @charlesmurray

    This paper is awfully opaque about the substance behind “population variation in demographics and behavior.” Going to the source they cite (van Essen 2012) didn’t help. https://t.co/q8pNQzvWfa

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1039549588166852613

  • The Envy of The Leftist Mind

    [I] just don’t understand the envy of the leftist mind. I mean, I am not tall enough to play major sports, or run a fortune 500 company for that matter. I have a touch of autism that prevents me from doing many things. I’ve been severely ill for large parts of my life. But I never really envy anyone other than the ordinary middle class guy who finds entertainment and joy in life’s simple pleasures, family and friends. I mean I looked up to people and tried to imitate them. I tried to learn from many people. I worked far harder than most people can imagine. But envy? What is wrong with the ‘equalitarian’ mind?

  • The Envy of The Leftist Mind

    [I] just don’t understand the envy of the leftist mind. I mean, I am not tall enough to play major sports, or run a fortune 500 company for that matter. I have a touch of autism that prevents me from doing many things. I’ve been severely ill for large parts of my life. But I never really envy anyone other than the ordinary middle class guy who finds entertainment and joy in life’s simple pleasures, family and friends. I mean I looked up to people and tried to imitate them. I tried to learn from many people. I worked far harder than most people can imagine. But envy? What is wrong with the ‘equalitarian’ mind?

  • People Are 100% Responsible

    [P]eople ARE 100% responsible for their success and failures TO REACH THEIR FULL POTENTIAL in the market for competency. 1) Any attempt to reach more than their relative ability to reach their full potential must be obtained by stealing from others who are more competent, and causing harm to the polity because of it. 2) pareto rule MUST exist: 10% do 50% of the value, 10% of that 10% do 50% of the value, and 10% of that 10% do 50% of the value and so on. Meaning that most people below a certain threshold, are a relative dead weight on society and mankind. 3) The difference is that conservatives desire and enjoy hierarchy and are not troubled by ‘fulfilling their duty of their position” while liberals think of almost nothing else than that others are superior to them in position, and are so because of competency. 4) Where competency means genes, ability, personality, morals, ethics, values, manners, habits, speech, appearance. 5) Classes exist. At every seven points we vary in vocational ability, and at every 15 points social ability, and at ever4 30 points we are nearly different species, with the commonality of language producing the illusion of compatibility. 6) We are, all of us, and must be, rewarded for the returns we provide to others when they cooperate with us. 7) And the results of that competition is a lottery with only so many pareto-efficient winners. Who, if they make good choices, can create an intergenerational family that persists their status – something that requires selective mating to prevent regression to the collective mean.