Theme: Agency

  • Good genes if you wanna fight in wars. We seem to come home from them…. lol

    Good genes if you wanna fight in wars. We seem to come home from them…. lol


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 01:17:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1000184007483633665

    Reply addressees: @SPQRIUS

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1000183044756660224


    IN REPLY TO:

    @SPQRIUS

    @curtdoolittle just want to make sure, I have that line in the family.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1000183044756660224

  • ELI ON FEMALE COERCION —“This is what women do. They mostly can’t think. And t

    ELI ON FEMALE COERCION

    —“This is what women do. They mostly can’t think. And they mostly can’t argue. So to get their way, and to get what they want, they deploy “the feminine means of coercion” (shaming, ridicule, mockery, rallying, scolding, nagging, gossip, psychoanalysis) to try and raise the social and emotional costs of disagreement WITHOUT addressing legitimate points of controversy or noncomplience with their demands WITHOUT offering anything of value in return.

    These means are dishonest, because they can be deployed to attack any point of view to advance or defend any other. They have no necessary connection to the truth. They are parasitic, because they are means of attempting to secure the *benefits* of cooperation, for the practitioner, at a discount – without paying all of the necessary costs. And they poison the dialog and lead to a general breakdown in cooperation and good order, and to hostility, acrimony, and bile instead, often boiling over into violence and other, more costly forms of conflict (e.g. “fighting words.”)

    That’s why our ancestors punished and suppressed such behavior by a variety of means.But as restrictions on the use of violence and masculine coercion have proliferated and intensified, restrictions on rhetorical violence and feminine coercion have been lifted and abolished, feminizing and emasculating our society and placing it under the harping, nagging, screeching, demanding, devouring, parasitic, stifling, control of bitchy, entitled, overbearing, unplesent and mentally and emotionally fragile women.

    At a time like this, over a medium like this, physical retaliation or other means of imposing costs to discourage such behavior are not realistic. But I’m damn sure not going to back down in the face of such c-ntery. I’m only going to escalate and double down to deprive its practitioners of satisfaction and let them know that we are not cooperating, that I do not need or desire their cooperation, and if they are going to deploy dishonest and parasitic methods I am going to consider us to be in conflict and seek to escalate that conflict by any and all means at my disposal, principally (here) by retaliation in kind (insults.)”— Eli Harman


    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-25 08:09:00 UTC

  • K(male-Pack) Constrains Damage of R(female-Herd).

    PLEASE UNDERSTAND WHAT STEVE IS SAYING: K CONSTRAINS DAMAGE OF R. via Steve Pender Hmmm 99.9% of species have gone extinct. If you’ve seen that video about the impact of wolves on Yellowstone, it seems that predators are more important in keeping r selected species suppressed, than r selected species are at filling their little niches. Suppression of r selected species seems to have a cascading eugenic effect on nature, while unrestricted r-selected reproduction can lead to plagues, famines, etc. It could be that certain r-selected species may fill valuable niches that limit the expansion of more threatening r-selected species though. However, we do need bees (pollinators), and whatever insects decompose dead organic matter (recyclers).

  • K(male-Pack) Constrains Damage of R(female-Herd).

    PLEASE UNDERSTAND WHAT STEVE IS SAYING: K CONSTRAINS DAMAGE OF R. via Steve Pender Hmmm 99.9% of species have gone extinct. If you’ve seen that video about the impact of wolves on Yellowstone, it seems that predators are more important in keeping r selected species suppressed, than r selected species are at filling their little niches. Suppression of r selected species seems to have a cascading eugenic effect on nature, while unrestricted r-selected reproduction can lead to plagues, famines, etc. It could be that certain r-selected species may fill valuable niches that limit the expansion of more threatening r-selected species though. However, we do need bees (pollinators), and whatever insects decompose dead organic matter (recyclers).

  • The A—hole Doctrine

    ( Most of the world is safe and enjoyable if you’re not an asshole. I’m not an asshole. Particularly in other countries. And I don’t associate with assholes in other countries. Nor do I engage in the activities that assholes engage in: drinking, drugs, large groups of people, making a lot of noise, generally trying to attract attention. The world punishes you for being an asshole. And so you shouldn’t be surprised that if you do, or enjoy doing, things assholes do, that regardless of where you are, you’re being treated like an asshole. Likewise the same applies to the naive. If you think the world isn’t full of a healthy distribution of assholes, and that you don’t have to take self responsibility for avoiding assholes, and people, places, and events where assholes congregate, then you are in fact, one of the assholes. )

  • The A—hole Doctrine

    ( Most of the world is safe and enjoyable if you’re not an asshole. I’m not an asshole. Particularly in other countries. And I don’t associate with assholes in other countries. Nor do I engage in the activities that assholes engage in: drinking, drugs, large groups of people, making a lot of noise, generally trying to attract attention. The world punishes you for being an asshole. And so you shouldn’t be surprised that if you do, or enjoy doing, things assholes do, that regardless of where you are, you’re being treated like an asshole. Likewise the same applies to the naive. If you think the world isn’t full of a healthy distribution of assholes, and that you don’t have to take self responsibility for avoiding assholes, and people, places, and events where assholes congregate, then you are in fact, one of the assholes. )

  • Stoicism Is Even More Important for Women than It Is for Men

    —“Stoicism has cleared my thinking dramatically. Its so naturally easy for us women to get sucked into our emotions and feminism has made it so we can’t be held accountable. So women are in the mind set that they can’t control their emotions, where stoicism teaches you that you can. I heard that Stoicism was the inspiration for Cognitive Behavior Therapy which is the same treatment they use for women with personality & identity crises. CBT is kind of like diluted small brain stoicism.”—Sarah Heard Men can feel ‘lost’ without it. Women can feel victims of their emotions without it.
    May 24, 2018 2:54pm
  • Stoicism Is Even More Important for Women than It Is for Men

    —“Stoicism has cleared my thinking dramatically. Its so naturally easy for us women to get sucked into our emotions and feminism has made it so we can’t be held accountable. So women are in the mind set that they can’t control their emotions, where stoicism teaches you that you can. I heard that Stoicism was the inspiration for Cognitive Behavior Therapy which is the same treatment they use for women with personality & identity crises. CBT is kind of like diluted small brain stoicism.”—Sarah Heard Men can feel ‘lost’ without it. Women can feel victims of their emotions without it.
    May 24, 2018 2:54pm
  • An Informational Approach to Stoicism.

    by Moritz Bierling from December 2, 2016 (repost) An Informational Approach to Stoicism Stoicism is essentially a software fix to a hardware fact: humans tend to emphasize or experience negative thoughts more strongly by roughly a factor of 2. Daniel Kahneman’s research into what is now codified under the term “behavioral economics” has shown this to be the case. When confronted with loss, whether potential or actual, we react much more strongly than when faced with a gain of equal size. Of course this makes perfect sense from an evolutionary, game-theoretical perspective. In order to be able to lose something, an organism must first have gained it through expenditure of a non-trivial amount of energy. If it were to give up easily on its “property”, conveniently defined here as “that which an organism defends”, it may very well not get another chance to acquire new food or mating partners, and consequently exit the gene pool and thus “the game” entirely. And since we humans are still here, and since we exist as biological creatures the ancestors of which have lived through extremely adverse environmental conditions, we too defend that which we have an interest in maintaining. Stoicism then, properly understood as the practice of mental discipline in the face of adversity, asks one to front-load the negative experiences that will inevitably intrude upon our day, and consequently allows one to prime one’s mental machinery such that tones down its reaction to actual adversity by taking advantage of the involuntary mechanism of comparing present experience to recent memory of similar nature. This practice, if coupled with training automatic responses to imagined adversity, allows one to benefit from the compressed version of a considered response, which tends to incorporate greater amounts of information about consequences and causal relations, and even superior processing of these factors into the outcome it generates. In a very real sense the Stoics were the first scientists. They systematically used greater amounts of information that they “updated” and refactored constantly through daily practice of mental discipline, and applied it to the problems they faced. They committed themselves and their fortune to the empirical study of human nature through constant self examination and continuous experimentation. They were the original “Agile developers” of their own internal software. Of course they didn’t do all of this “just for the fun of it”. Students of the discipline, and especially professors of philosophy – or so-called “intellectual-yet-idiots” – often forget that the whole point of this practice is to actually gain the upside. What use is all of this discipline if the reward is zero? As Taleb points out, Seneca, at the time the wealthiest man in the world, “wanted to keep the upside and not be hurt by the downside.” By choosing to experience extreme loss on a daily basis like the good Stoic he was, he avoided more often than not the actual losses heaped on him by fate. And when he did experience a loss he got right back to work to “transform fear into prudence, pain into transformation, mistakes into initiation, and desire into undertaking.” Because what else is there to do? Notice here that the practicing Stoic, unlike the idle student of Stoicism, assimilates information from the environment in order to use it. He recognizes the nascent value in adopting this way of life and intends, nay! decides to capture it. In effect he, or rather the series of men he will become by constantly killing off a series of lesser versions of himself that attempt to protect unproductive attachments, evolves on the psycho-spiritual rather than genetic level. He uses a never-ending series of ever greater attachments to motivate his psychological and neuromuscular machinery into action that will yield superior strength and optionality, which in turn generates greater vision and broader fields of possible and profitable paths of action. He self-creates. Through the acquisition of greater amounts of information and their integration into his operational machinery (quasi permanent structures on the habitual, neuronal, neuromuscular, physical levels) he gains the ability to put greater amounts of resources (stored in various forms of capital: informational, relationships, tools, etc) to the extant (or “greatest-utility-yielding”) path of action, thereby strengthening his dominion over more parts of nature, including himself. One may even be tempted to say that the most informationally complete or integrated structure, on whatever level, will tend to influence everything around it in outward circles on all levels: sub- and superstrata.
    May 24, 2018 4:48pm
  • An Informational Approach to Stoicism.

    by Moritz Bierling from December 2, 2016 (repost) An Informational Approach to Stoicism Stoicism is essentially a software fix to a hardware fact: humans tend to emphasize or experience negative thoughts more strongly by roughly a factor of 2. Daniel Kahneman’s research into what is now codified under the term “behavioral economics” has shown this to be the case. When confronted with loss, whether potential or actual, we react much more strongly than when faced with a gain of equal size. Of course this makes perfect sense from an evolutionary, game-theoretical perspective. In order to be able to lose something, an organism must first have gained it through expenditure of a non-trivial amount of energy. If it were to give up easily on its “property”, conveniently defined here as “that which an organism defends”, it may very well not get another chance to acquire new food or mating partners, and consequently exit the gene pool and thus “the game” entirely. And since we humans are still here, and since we exist as biological creatures the ancestors of which have lived through extremely adverse environmental conditions, we too defend that which we have an interest in maintaining. Stoicism then, properly understood as the practice of mental discipline in the face of adversity, asks one to front-load the negative experiences that will inevitably intrude upon our day, and consequently allows one to prime one’s mental machinery such that tones down its reaction to actual adversity by taking advantage of the involuntary mechanism of comparing present experience to recent memory of similar nature. This practice, if coupled with training automatic responses to imagined adversity, allows one to benefit from the compressed version of a considered response, which tends to incorporate greater amounts of information about consequences and causal relations, and even superior processing of these factors into the outcome it generates. In a very real sense the Stoics were the first scientists. They systematically used greater amounts of information that they “updated” and refactored constantly through daily practice of mental discipline, and applied it to the problems they faced. They committed themselves and their fortune to the empirical study of human nature through constant self examination and continuous experimentation. They were the original “Agile developers” of their own internal software. Of course they didn’t do all of this “just for the fun of it”. Students of the discipline, and especially professors of philosophy – or so-called “intellectual-yet-idiots” – often forget that the whole point of this practice is to actually gain the upside. What use is all of this discipline if the reward is zero? As Taleb points out, Seneca, at the time the wealthiest man in the world, “wanted to keep the upside and not be hurt by the downside.” By choosing to experience extreme loss on a daily basis like the good Stoic he was, he avoided more often than not the actual losses heaped on him by fate. And when he did experience a loss he got right back to work to “transform fear into prudence, pain into transformation, mistakes into initiation, and desire into undertaking.” Because what else is there to do? Notice here that the practicing Stoic, unlike the idle student of Stoicism, assimilates information from the environment in order to use it. He recognizes the nascent value in adopting this way of life and intends, nay! decides to capture it. In effect he, or rather the series of men he will become by constantly killing off a series of lesser versions of himself that attempt to protect unproductive attachments, evolves on the psycho-spiritual rather than genetic level. He uses a never-ending series of ever greater attachments to motivate his psychological and neuromuscular machinery into action that will yield superior strength and optionality, which in turn generates greater vision and broader fields of possible and profitable paths of action. He self-creates. Through the acquisition of greater amounts of information and their integration into his operational machinery (quasi permanent structures on the habitual, neuronal, neuromuscular, physical levels) he gains the ability to put greater amounts of resources (stored in various forms of capital: informational, relationships, tools, etc) to the extant (or “greatest-utility-yielding”) path of action, thereby strengthening his dominion over more parts of nature, including himself. One may even be tempted to say that the most informationally complete or integrated structure, on whatever level, will tend to influence everything around it in outward circles on all levels: sub- and superstrata.
    May 24, 2018 4:48pm