The more inferior the men, the more demanding of position.
The most inferior of men demand position by the only means possible: reducing everyone to their level (equality)
The most superior men demand nothing but sovereignty – they need not.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 15:30:00 UTC
I will give you the honest answer, but you won’t like it.
The problem is that the answer to most questions that people would ask is:
—-”I have a limited amount of time and I try to spend it wisely, and that would be a poor use of my time”—-
or
—-”That question is so trivial, and so readily available on google, that I can’t believe you are so lazy that you’re asking me instead”—-
or
—-“You are far to ignorant and stupid to comprehend the answer to your question in the amount of time I can afford to donate to you.”—-
Rather than tell you those honest bits of truth they stay silent.
(Myself, I use the public as experimental subjects, but my category of work allows me to do that. Mostly, though, honestly – most questions are too costly to answer. So I publish everything I write and hope that people just ‘read along’ for a while, and it works.)
https://www.quora.com/Do-highly-academically-accomplished-people-often-deliberately-make-themselves-non-open-because-too-much-openness-would-distract-them
I will give you the honest answer, but you won’t like it.
The problem is that the answer to most questions that people would ask is:
—-”I have a limited amount of time and I try to spend it wisely, and that would be a poor use of my time”—-
or
—-”That question is so trivial, and so readily available on google, that I can’t believe you are so lazy that you’re asking me instead”—-
or
—-“You are far to ignorant and stupid to comprehend the answer to your question in the amount of time I can afford to donate to you.”—-
Rather than tell you those honest bits of truth they stay silent.
(Myself, I use the public as experimental subjects, but my category of work allows me to do that. Mostly, though, honestly – most questions are too costly to answer. So I publish everything I write and hope that people just ‘read along’ for a while, and it works.)
https://www.quora.com/Do-highly-academically-accomplished-people-often-deliberately-make-themselves-non-open-because-too-much-openness-would-distract-them
So you are saying competition, calculation, incentives to produce, an climing dominance hierarchy among men do not exist, or needn’t exist?
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 13:01:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867364943380742145
Reply addressees: @EasternMarxist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867354095190978560
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/867354095190978560
So no. Because of competition, calculation, and incentives. You cannot eliminate male need to climb the dominance hierarchy. Sorry.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 07:28:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867281007472463872
Reply addressees: @BernardoGrando @EasternMarxist
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867251149635805186
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/867251149635805186
PROPERTARIAN CLASS STRUCTURES = DOMINANCE HIERARCHIES.
What dominance hierarchies (classes) can man climb?
1) Physical (force)
2) Economic (exchange)
3) Gossip (insurance, inclusion, exclusion)
We can climb all three of them – and we do. If we can.
I’m short but not easy on the physical force thing.
Economically I’ve done pretty well.
Gossip (this stuff you’re reading) i’m pretty damned good at.
You can rate men on the scale of 1-10 in each of these and determine his social status.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-23 12:29:00 UTC
by Joel Davis
James Augustus, your insight on this topic still inspires me.
On tragedy and heroism,
To act is to encounter resistance. To encounter resistance is to suffer.
To overpower resistance individually is heroism. To overpower resistance collectively is progress. Collective progression requires heroic leaders, hence the glory of heroism.
To succumb to resistance individually is inevitable, however to struggle against resistance individually is to aide the collective struggle to progress. Collective progression requires individual struggle, hence the beauty of tragedy.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-22 16:46:00 UTC
YOU DON’T NEED TO UNDERSTAND WOMEN, REALLY
—“Understanding women is not difficult. It is useless.”—Francesco Principi
This statement appears humorous but it is profound.
Even if you do understand them, it’s irrelevant because you cannot change them.
We only need understand that which we can use, change, or avoid.
Understanding requires reason, but women are far less rational creatures out of evolutionary necessity, and as irrational creatures
Rationality is necessary for crafts, hunting, war, and politics. Women live in a world of absorbing and reacting to events, not constructing possibilities.
Raising offspring with other women is not a matter of supply but of demand.
You do not need to understand women, just enjoy them, love them, try to make them happy if you can afford to maintain them, do favors for them to buy options on the future if you can’t, or avoid them and let them be women otherwise.
This is a VERY WESTERN approach to women, in which they are free within the affairs of women, but not empowered to interfere in the affairs of men.
Women can NEVER understand men because they cannot imagine our simplicity, our needs, or our severity. They can understand our feelings that are similar to theirs, but not our perceptions or our ambitions, or the feelings they do not share.
The best we can do is love them – meaning accept them for what they are; and limit them – meaning prevent their externalization of harm to the tribe due to their impulses evolved for her and her offspring, just as we prevent the internalization of men’s harm to individuals within the tribe due to their impulses evolved for the world outside of it.
And the best we can do for both is to pair off into couples and take care of the interests of the other. Because we are compatible if we are not equal, or even that similar.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-22 12:00:00 UTC
THE LAWS OF STUPIDITY
(h/t to a friend)
URGENT VS IMPORANT
(Eisenhower)
“I have two kinds of problems: the urgent and the important. The urgent are not important, and the important are never urgent.”
Important: an outcome that leads to us achieving our goals, whether these are professional or personal.
Urgent: achieving someone else’s goals. They are often the ones we concentrate on and they demand attention because the consequences of not dealing with them are immediate.
Therefore all Priorities can be organized into:
1 – Important and urgent
2 – Important and not urgent
3 – not important, but urgent
4 – not important, and not urgent
THE ILLUSORY COMPETENCE PROBLEM
(stupid people don’t know they’re stupid)
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias, wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superiority when they mistakenly assess their ability as greater than they possess. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude, without which they cannot accurately evaluate their actual competence.
AMBITIOUS VS CAPABLE
by General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord
“I divide my officers into four classes as follows: The clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Each officer always possesses two of these qualities. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite nerves and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff, [ensuring that every detail is properly considered]. Use can – under certain circumstances – be made of those who are stupid and lazy, [they do no harm.]. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous.”
STUPID PEOPLE
by Carlo M. Cipolla
Law 1: Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.
Law 2: The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person.
Law 3. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.
Law 4: Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
Law 5: A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person, because a stupid person is more dangerous than a bandit.
THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE
The single most determining factor of your health, wealth, and happiness, is continuously decreasing the population below 105iQ.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 12:29:00 UTC
( criticism from the family, this is my response:)
I am very clear about my priorities: Philosophy, Money, Women. Everything else is out of my range of vision. So yes, I did notice she had a hot body. When I stop. I’ll be dead.
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 12:17:00 UTC