Christianity does in fact produce mindfulness – as does and must, any religion. And mindfulness does in fact produce agency. The question is whether we can produce the same mindfulness but far greater agency if we retain the scientific (secular) content of the religion, reform the history, reform the lessons, reform the oath, and sacrifice/feast.
Theme: Agency
-
Fat Tailed Male IQ Scores
–“Hey Curt, how would you explain the fat-tailed, high-standard-deviation distribution of male IQ scores from an evolutionary/natural selection/sexual selection standpoint?”—Yiannis Kontinopoulos I can’t take time to make a complete list but here are the most obvious factors: (a) hierarchies are necessary for decision making, and outliers facilitate hierarchy formation. (b) intelligence appears to be (very) high causal density (ie: fragile) (c) intelligence as we understand it requires time (vulnerability) even if it succeeds at condensing time. So there is equal demand for impulsivity( short reaction times). (d) habituation of advantages in large numbers is lower cost than intelligence in large numbers. (e) brains are 11x as expensive as muscles. (e) there is very little value to female intelligence (equality). Intelligence is only as valueable as it is combined with aggression and physical ability. otherwise intelligence at the cost of aggression and physical ability just leads to defeat by ‘cheaper’ group strategies. And yes that means what you think it does. Updated: Well, as the comments suggest, intelligence is to some degree an advantage for the group, even if women don’t select for it (much at all). Also, the “crazy high risk uncle” is extremely valuable for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Also, the ‘lunatic’ is advantageous for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Women select for what we consider ‘sports team members’ – at least as best as they can obtain. My point was that there is a reason it’s an outlier phenomenon: it’s expensive, it requires high causal density, women counter-select for it, and there is a limit to the value of the distribution.
-
Fat Tailed Male IQ Scores
–“Hey Curt, how would you explain the fat-tailed, high-standard-deviation distribution of male IQ scores from an evolutionary/natural selection/sexual selection standpoint?”—Yiannis Kontinopoulos I can’t take time to make a complete list but here are the most obvious factors: (a) hierarchies are necessary for decision making, and outliers facilitate hierarchy formation. (b) intelligence appears to be (very) high causal density (ie: fragile) (c) intelligence as we understand it requires time (vulnerability) even if it succeeds at condensing time. So there is equal demand for impulsivity( short reaction times). (d) habituation of advantages in large numbers is lower cost than intelligence in large numbers. (e) brains are 11x as expensive as muscles. (e) there is very little value to female intelligence (equality). Intelligence is only as valueable as it is combined with aggression and physical ability. otherwise intelligence at the cost of aggression and physical ability just leads to defeat by ‘cheaper’ group strategies. And yes that means what you think it does. Updated: Well, as the comments suggest, intelligence is to some degree an advantage for the group, even if women don’t select for it (much at all). Also, the “crazy high risk uncle” is extremely valuable for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Also, the ‘lunatic’ is advantageous for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Women select for what we consider ‘sports team members’ – at least as best as they can obtain. My point was that there is a reason it’s an outlier phenomenon: it’s expensive, it requires high causal density, women counter-select for it, and there is a limit to the value of the distribution.
-
WHY WE GET IT WRONG: ‘ABLENESS AND AGENCY’ That’s why we always get it wrong: on
WHY WE GET IT WRONG: ‘ABLENESS AND AGENCY’
That’s why we always get it wrong: only SOME of us want sovereignty, liberty, and freedom. Most all humans instead want security and subsidy. Which is ok. As long as they don’t have say in anything.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-14 14:32:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1007269561471848448
-
WHY WE GET IT WRONG: ‘ABLENESS AND AGENCY’ That’s why we always get it wrong: on
WHY WE GET IT WRONG: ‘ABLENESS AND AGENCY’
That’s why we always get it wrong: only SOME of us want sovereignty, liberty, and freedom. Most all humans instead want security and subsidy. Which is ok. As long as they don’t have say in anything.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-14 10:32:00 UTC
-
LATE AGE SUICIDE: LONELINESS Its Loneliness. That’s the data. Not money. Lonelin
LATE AGE SUICIDE: LONELINESS
Its Loneliness. That’s the data. Not money. Loneliness. And buying attention and affection substitutes is too expensive in the absence of family and friends.
Families are the only possible insurer.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-12 20:33:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1006635534339461121
-
The Secret to Listening to Women
I’ve written about the problem of men learning to listen to women for years now, and it seems like one of those things that we ought to be taught as a general man-rule. The trick to listening to women is listening 10% and thinking about something else 90% rather than asking a woman to distill her thoughts down to the 10% of facts that matter. Worse, we don’t get all the signaling involved between women – it doesn’t exist – so the entire point of communication may in fact be nothing other than the transfer of signals. Unfortunately there is no course in ‘woman speak’ for men to take. Even if it’s the most valuable course we could take. I just listen. And ask questions. The hard part is learning NOT TO TRY TO SOLVE A PROBLEM. Just listen. I think the problem occurs when women ask men to experience their emotions the way another woman does, when they share experiences. This forces men to lie – to pretend either that they understand them, or that they feel them, or that they even can feel them. What I’ve found is that if a woman explains how she felt I can undrestand it. But describing the circumstance itself does not help me understand it. Finally, to just show that I understand, and usually that her feelings were justified. The hard part is not trying to inquire or solve the problem but just show you understand, accept, and let her express (exit, expend, exhaust) her emotions. It’s different with staff. Some women need to be taught that when talking to men, it’s JUST THE FACTS, and WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO?. Otherwise the woman is using my much shallower emotional reservoir and clouding my judgement. Most people by a large margin prefer male bosses for the simple reason that we don’t get involved in the emotional stuff. But it’s actually because we don’t even see it, hear it, or understand it. And if we do, we consider it childish and it makes us angry. The trick for men with women is always patience. 😉 Which is in fact, the trick with all human beings. Patience is the under appreciated and misunderstood. Why? ‘Cause it’s costly
-
The Secret to Listening to Women
I’ve written about the problem of men learning to listen to women for years now, and it seems like one of those things that we ought to be taught as a general man-rule. The trick to listening to women is listening 10% and thinking about something else 90% rather than asking a woman to distill her thoughts down to the 10% of facts that matter. Worse, we don’t get all the signaling involved between women – it doesn’t exist – so the entire point of communication may in fact be nothing other than the transfer of signals. Unfortunately there is no course in ‘woman speak’ for men to take. Even if it’s the most valuable course we could take. I just listen. And ask questions. The hard part is learning NOT TO TRY TO SOLVE A PROBLEM. Just listen. I think the problem occurs when women ask men to experience their emotions the way another woman does, when they share experiences. This forces men to lie – to pretend either that they understand them, or that they feel them, or that they even can feel them. What I’ve found is that if a woman explains how she felt I can undrestand it. But describing the circumstance itself does not help me understand it. Finally, to just show that I understand, and usually that her feelings were justified. The hard part is not trying to inquire or solve the problem but just show you understand, accept, and let her express (exit, expend, exhaust) her emotions. It’s different with staff. Some women need to be taught that when talking to men, it’s JUST THE FACTS, and WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO?. Otherwise the woman is using my much shallower emotional reservoir and clouding my judgement. Most people by a large margin prefer male bosses for the simple reason that we don’t get involved in the emotional stuff. But it’s actually because we don’t even see it, hear it, or understand it. And if we do, we consider it childish and it makes us angry. The trick for men with women is always patience. 😉 Which is in fact, the trick with all human beings. Patience is the under appreciated and misunderstood. Why? ‘Cause it’s costly
-
More on The Esoteric, Occult, and Literary and A Request that Men Face Their Lack of Agency as Individuals
How do I make clear that one does not argue with the fulfilling (wisdom lit) but with the truth (science)? Well that’s what I try to do. I have had to continuously counter-signal attacks against my work for not providing a lower agency, more accessible version of the natural law. THERE ISN”T ONE. Man can be lifted to it by constructing his agency, but it cannot be lowered for those lacking it. And yes it is lower agency to need literature because it relies on appeal to intuition and does not consist of a continuous stream of constant relations between reality and decision. But that does not mean that when one possesses lower agency one cannot still live a fulfilling life. It means that literary argument is analogy and wisdom helpful in choice of preference and good – and perhaps even understanding. It can in fact function as sedation. Or even inspiration. Inspiration necessary because of a lack of membership in teams granting one agency. I would read the lord of the rings, and dune, and Neuromancer to envision possibilities, and in fact, most history to gain wisdom. I can understand reading the essays of wise men (particularly Montaigne and Chesterton). But these are vehicles for understanding. Not for argument and decision. Any more than religion and rationalism are means of arguing for truth. IT IS QUITE HARD TO LACK AGENCY AS A YOUNG MAN. As such i’m criticizing the lack of organizations for MEN. But I undrestand the struggle of being an individual young male, particularly in modernity. It’s alienating. Literature is a substitute for membership in a group with which one obtains agency. Individualism is the necessary subject of the Law – all else requires guilds, teams, militias, armies, and governments: NUMBERS. Again… esotericism is escapist literature for those with low agency, and I’m absolutely positive if I spent 25k for an academic and his grad students to do the research it would come out as the same. Esotericism is simply another secular religion. And literature is between wisdom literature, secular theology, entertainment, and escapism. So it’s ok to criticize and I understand the market need exists. But I am not trying to fill that market need by DEGREDATION but by transcendence of the male into that which he longs for by EXISTENTIAL rather than fantasy means. And if not, then all that matters is that a small percentage of the population of choose agency, action, and transformation of the real world, as an army, rather than literary sedation, as an individual.
-
More on The Esoteric, Occult, and Literary and A Request that Men Face Their Lack of Agency as Individuals
How do I make clear that one does not argue with the fulfilling (wisdom lit) but with the truth (science)? Well that’s what I try to do. I have had to continuously counter-signal attacks against my work for not providing a lower agency, more accessible version of the natural law. THERE ISN”T ONE. Man can be lifted to it by constructing his agency, but it cannot be lowered for those lacking it. And yes it is lower agency to need literature because it relies on appeal to intuition and does not consist of a continuous stream of constant relations between reality and decision. But that does not mean that when one possesses lower agency one cannot still live a fulfilling life. It means that literary argument is analogy and wisdom helpful in choice of preference and good – and perhaps even understanding. It can in fact function as sedation. Or even inspiration. Inspiration necessary because of a lack of membership in teams granting one agency. I would read the lord of the rings, and dune, and Neuromancer to envision possibilities, and in fact, most history to gain wisdom. I can understand reading the essays of wise men (particularly Montaigne and Chesterton). But these are vehicles for understanding. Not for argument and decision. Any more than religion and rationalism are means of arguing for truth. IT IS QUITE HARD TO LACK AGENCY AS A YOUNG MAN. As such i’m criticizing the lack of organizations for MEN. But I undrestand the struggle of being an individual young male, particularly in modernity. It’s alienating. Literature is a substitute for membership in a group with which one obtains agency. Individualism is the necessary subject of the Law – all else requires guilds, teams, militias, armies, and governments: NUMBERS. Again… esotericism is escapist literature for those with low agency, and I’m absolutely positive if I spent 25k for an academic and his grad students to do the research it would come out as the same. Esotericism is simply another secular religion. And literature is between wisdom literature, secular theology, entertainment, and escapism. So it’s ok to criticize and I understand the market need exists. But I am not trying to fill that market need by DEGREDATION but by transcendence of the male into that which he longs for by EXISTENTIAL rather than fantasy means. And if not, then all that matters is that a small percentage of the population of choose agency, action, and transformation of the real world, as an army, rather than literary sedation, as an individual.