Theme: Agency

  • THE IGNORANCES OF THE GENDERS You know, it’s common knowledge that women communi

    THE IGNORANCES OF THE GENDERS

    You know, it’s common knowledge that women communicate in a language with semantics unavailable to men, and that the female mind is impenetrable to man.

    But it is not common knowledge that

    Did you ever notice that when a woman talks to a man she has to change her language? I don’t know if they consider it dumbing down, but they speak like they do

    Did you ever notice that when a man talks to a woman he interprets it as ‘dumbing down’?

    Did you ever notice that when a man walks into a room of women talking, they immediately change body language, behavior, and speech?

    Did you ever notice that when a woman walks into a room of men talking they immediately change their body language, behavior and speech?

    Always and everywhere.

    Despite a relationship with what I consider one of the smarter or smartest women in technology, I have never met a woman I could talk to who possessed the what I would call the spatial-theoretical (predictive or modeling) capacity of man. I have met gay men who can largely interpret the language of women. And sometimes I think gay men have the advantage if they have the intelligence, of understanding both sides, and gay women understanding neither.

    The only way I know how to test this is interpersonally by continuously expanding the scope of an idea that the person is familiar with to their limits. Men have much higher limits – OR they are unafraid to transgress their limits. I am not sure which, but I think that might be the answer, and I have no way of testing that – although it should be testable.

    We are both ignorant of the minds of the others.

    Women are shallower than the aspie men, and aspies tend to be nearly unlimited theoretically, and I am relatively sure that the same cognition that prevents women from violating NAXALT and violating groupthink, keeps them out of theory. Which is why women contribute almost nothing to theory that is true (feminism is a great example) but that women DO produce empirical work of high quality – especially about humans or the physical world.

    In other words, women are limited at great scale by their integration. And we are limited at local scale by our lack of it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-20 11:28:00 UTC

  • The Ignorances Of The Genders

    You know, it’s common knowledge that women communicate in a language with semantics unavailable to men, and that the female mind is impenetrable to man. But it is not common knowledge that Did you ever notice that when a woman talks to a man she has to change her language? I don’t know if they consider it dumbing down, but they speak like they do Did you ever notice that when a man talks to a woman he interprets it as ‘dumbing down’? Did you ever notice that when a man walks into a room of women talking, they immediately change body language, behavior, and speech? Did you ever notice that when a woman walks into a room of men talking they immediately change their body language, behavior and speech? Always and everywhere. Despite a relationship with what I consider one of the smarter or smartest women in technology, I have never met a woman I could talk to who possessed the what I would call the spatial-theoretical (predictive or modeling) capacity of man. I have met gay men who can largely interpret the language of women. And sometimes I think gay men have the advantage if they have the intelligence, of understanding both sides, and gay women understanding neither. The only way I know how to test this is interpersonally by continuously expanding the scope of an idea that the person is familiar with to their limits. Men have much higher limits – OR they are unafraid to transgress their limits. I am not sure which, but I think that might be the answer, and I have no way of testing that – although it should be testable. We are both ignorant of the minds of the others. Women are shallower than the aspie men, and aspies tend to be nearly unlimited theoretically, and I am relatively sure that the same cognition that prevents women from violating NAXALT and violating groupthink, keeps them out of theory. Which is why women contribute almost nothing to theory that is true (feminism is a great example) but that women DO produce empirical work of high quality – especially about humans or the physical world. In other words, women are limited at great scale by their integration. And we are limited at local scale by our lack of it.
  • The Ignorances Of The Genders

    You know, it’s common knowledge that women communicate in a language with semantics unavailable to men, and that the female mind is impenetrable to man. But it is not common knowledge that Did you ever notice that when a woman talks to a man she has to change her language? I don’t know if they consider it dumbing down, but they speak like they do Did you ever notice that when a man talks to a woman he interprets it as ‘dumbing down’? Did you ever notice that when a man walks into a room of women talking, they immediately change body language, behavior, and speech? Did you ever notice that when a woman walks into a room of men talking they immediately change their body language, behavior and speech? Always and everywhere. Despite a relationship with what I consider one of the smarter or smartest women in technology, I have never met a woman I could talk to who possessed the what I would call the spatial-theoretical (predictive or modeling) capacity of man. I have met gay men who can largely interpret the language of women. And sometimes I think gay men have the advantage if they have the intelligence, of understanding both sides, and gay women understanding neither. The only way I know how to test this is interpersonally by continuously expanding the scope of an idea that the person is familiar with to their limits. Men have much higher limits – OR they are unafraid to transgress their limits. I am not sure which, but I think that might be the answer, and I have no way of testing that – although it should be testable. We are both ignorant of the minds of the others. Women are shallower than the aspie men, and aspies tend to be nearly unlimited theoretically, and I am relatively sure that the same cognition that prevents women from violating NAXALT and violating groupthink, keeps them out of theory. Which is why women contribute almost nothing to theory that is true (feminism is a great example) but that women DO produce empirical work of high quality – especially about humans or the physical world. In other words, women are limited at great scale by their integration. And we are limited at local scale by our lack of it.
  • GENES ARE THE ONLY REMAINING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

    GENES ARE THE ONLY REMAINING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
  • GENES ARE THE ONLY REMAINING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

    GENES ARE THE ONLY REMAINING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
  • GENES ARE THE ONLY REMAINING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

    GENES ARE THE ONLY REMAINING COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-20 11:16:00 UTC

  • Thanks. That’s a compliment that confirms the delta in agency, intelligence, kno

    Thanks. That’s a compliment that confirms the delta in agency, intelligence, knowledge and class. 😉 If the peasantry doesn’t admonish you for demonstration of superiority, it’s possible that you’re not ambitious and successful enough. 😉 lolz


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-20 02:03:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954534754883432448

    Reply addressees: @Aintezbncheez @hysellaz @TheView

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954531969542623233


    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/954531969542623233

  • That sounds about right. I would have said high 120s. But you cant be held respo

    That sounds about right. I would have said high 120s. But you cant be held responsible for an education in pseudoscience, and genetic need to keep alphas down. Evolution is still stronger than reason in all but a few of us. And those rare, are themselves also such a product.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-20 01:51:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954531751380078593

    Reply addressees: @Aintezbncheez @hysellaz @TheView

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954525705290661888


    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/954525705290661888

  • Why is it so hard for you? I understand that some cannot compete on intellect, c

    Why is it so hard for you? I understand that some cannot compete on intellect, character, skill, merit and achievement, so its necessary to use ridicule, rallying and shaming to preserve the pretense of genetic, social, economic, political and military value. I appreciate you.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-20 01:21:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954524340778946560

    Reply addressees: @Aintezbncheez @hysellaz @TheView

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954518903509549056


    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/954518903509549056

  • You demonstrate you care. An intellectually and morally honest person would not

    You demonstrate you care. An intellectually and morally honest person would not deny that by your actions you demonstrate such.

    (I type at 150wpm, and it’s not like these take me more than half a second of thought. They provide amusement while I work. Continuous confirmation.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-20 01:19:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954523756046770177

    Reply addressees: @Aintezbncheez @hysellaz @TheView

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954522543100125184


    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/954522543100125184