YOUR MIND CAN’T FEEL PAIN IT CAN HOWEVER FEEL DEPRESSION – THE MIND’S VERSION OF CHRONIC PAIN. people who work long hours, without walking or running, under information saturation, and artificial light saturation in seasonally dark climates will develop majority depressive symptoms in the population, requiring anti-depressant drugs to relieve the pain (depression is pain). Underclass workers will develop chronic pain and require opiates. In other words, we are working ourselves to death, because chronic bodily pain and depression are just two words for the same symptoms produced by the same causes. Your mind can’t feel pain from exhaustion it can only feel depression
Theme: Agency
-
No, We Sense All The World That Is Actionable
Apr 26, 2017 2:21pm I would say that our senses cover a wide range of the energy spectrum, and other than temperature or sensitivity we are not lacking in available senses nor information processing power. I would say that it certainly appears that we can sense everything that we can act upon or react to. Which is all evolution can do for us. Our achievements have been in extending our ability to perceive and act at increasing scales, through the use of cooperation and instrumentation I would say that we evolved our reason in concert with our language, and that the limitation of serial utterance of language, and the relatively high cost of speech determines the utility of using stories (think ‘parallelization’) that make use of context (high free association ), and that precision (low context high precision) is the result of our general need to increase sense perception cognition decidability, and retention in concert with our increase in scales of cooperation and instrumentation. ergo: our minds evolved to be limited by our speech. As far as I know the demonstrated difference in intellectual performance over the past few centuries has been the conversion of recipe-thinking to general-rule-thinking. And that this has demonstrated that changes in the method of thought dramatically improve the structure of the brain and therefore mind, and the mind’s ability to process information by association. Ergo, seemingly burdensome training of the mind can dramatically increase processing power through the application of new general rules more correspondent with the scale of concepts we utilize. Storytelling, symbols, measures, writing and literacy, reason, rationalism, empiricism, and now testimonialism, all rewire the brain and the mind to use the tools at their disposal – admittedly at some cost of acquisition. We observe differences (changes). The limit is information given reaction time, and limit in causal relations. We evolved when we could make lots of use of time. We can process absurd informational density. I am not even sure if we know how to measure it. We can REASON with limited ability. So given that some portion of people can master higher precision and greater scale, and some lower precision and lower scale, the question is merely how to construct cooperation among people with different abilities, and we encounter one solution: voluntary exchange, and one problem: dispute resolution. While voluntary cooperation scales indefinitely, dispute resolution is limited to a maximum difference between individuals ability to judge (ergo, dunning kruger). Now, the universe cannot ‘lie’. Our imaginations and our brains are filled with folly we increasingly succeed in purging through the development of rules, operations, objects, relations, and values, and saturating the common folk in context and therefore eliminating their need for calculative(rational) equivalency. (environment, information, norms, institutions. Ergo some of us can create institutions, norms, information, and environment that the less cognitively able can depend upon as means of obviating their limited ability to calculate, and decreasing the cost of their acquisition of those patterns. But an individual regardless of his abilities CAN perform due diligence to the BEST of his abilities. And in fact, that is what we do. And we provide prior restraint in the form of institutions, procedures, laws, norms and traditions to both limit his ability to cause harm to others out of ignorance, and provide contextual, procedural and educational means of enabling him to act within those limits. We do this and always have done it whether it be baby, child, youth, adult, mature adult, or barbarian, slave, serf, freeman, citizen, sovereign. Of course, we always seek discounts, and particularly discounts that suit our biases and wishful thinking, and facilitate our use of suggestion, obscurantism and deceit within the limits we can get away with. To leap ahead, and seize your concern, The question might be instead, “why does one have the right to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit if cooperation and non conflict increasingly requires we eliminate them? I appreciate your concern for the common man. But in each era, the defenders of the anchors of the prior order of ideas and therefore man, attempt to preserve it – always wrongly. The test is simple: are we adding to the information processing of man or we constraining or reducing it?
-
No, We Sense All The World That Is Actionable
Apr 26, 2017 2:21pm I would say that our senses cover a wide range of the energy spectrum, and other than temperature or sensitivity we are not lacking in available senses nor information processing power. I would say that it certainly appears that we can sense everything that we can act upon or react to. Which is all evolution can do for us. Our achievements have been in extending our ability to perceive and act at increasing scales, through the use of cooperation and instrumentation I would say that we evolved our reason in concert with our language, and that the limitation of serial utterance of language, and the relatively high cost of speech determines the utility of using stories (think ‘parallelization’) that make use of context (high free association ), and that precision (low context high precision) is the result of our general need to increase sense perception cognition decidability, and retention in concert with our increase in scales of cooperation and instrumentation. ergo: our minds evolved to be limited by our speech. As far as I know the demonstrated difference in intellectual performance over the past few centuries has been the conversion of recipe-thinking to general-rule-thinking. And that this has demonstrated that changes in the method of thought dramatically improve the structure of the brain and therefore mind, and the mind’s ability to process information by association. Ergo, seemingly burdensome training of the mind can dramatically increase processing power through the application of new general rules more correspondent with the scale of concepts we utilize. Storytelling, symbols, measures, writing and literacy, reason, rationalism, empiricism, and now testimonialism, all rewire the brain and the mind to use the tools at their disposal – admittedly at some cost of acquisition. We observe differences (changes). The limit is information given reaction time, and limit in causal relations. We evolved when we could make lots of use of time. We can process absurd informational density. I am not even sure if we know how to measure it. We can REASON with limited ability. So given that some portion of people can master higher precision and greater scale, and some lower precision and lower scale, the question is merely how to construct cooperation among people with different abilities, and we encounter one solution: voluntary exchange, and one problem: dispute resolution. While voluntary cooperation scales indefinitely, dispute resolution is limited to a maximum difference between individuals ability to judge (ergo, dunning kruger). Now, the universe cannot ‘lie’. Our imaginations and our brains are filled with folly we increasingly succeed in purging through the development of rules, operations, objects, relations, and values, and saturating the common folk in context and therefore eliminating their need for calculative(rational) equivalency. (environment, information, norms, institutions. Ergo some of us can create institutions, norms, information, and environment that the less cognitively able can depend upon as means of obviating their limited ability to calculate, and decreasing the cost of their acquisition of those patterns. But an individual regardless of his abilities CAN perform due diligence to the BEST of his abilities. And in fact, that is what we do. And we provide prior restraint in the form of institutions, procedures, laws, norms and traditions to both limit his ability to cause harm to others out of ignorance, and provide contextual, procedural and educational means of enabling him to act within those limits. We do this and always have done it whether it be baby, child, youth, adult, mature adult, or barbarian, slave, serf, freeman, citizen, sovereign. Of course, we always seek discounts, and particularly discounts that suit our biases and wishful thinking, and facilitate our use of suggestion, obscurantism and deceit within the limits we can get away with. To leap ahead, and seize your concern, The question might be instead, “why does one have the right to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit if cooperation and non conflict increasingly requires we eliminate them? I appreciate your concern for the common man. But in each era, the defenders of the anchors of the prior order of ideas and therefore man, attempt to preserve it – always wrongly. The test is simple: are we adding to the information processing of man or we constraining or reducing it?
-
We Can Improve Our Individual Senses and Not Improve Actionability or We Can Improve Our Environmental Information and Improve Actionability
We process what we can act upon nearly all of the texture, tasted, smell, temperature, physical vibration, sound vibration, electromagnetic ‘vibration’ we can act upon. Like most animals we evolved a distributed ability to ‘sense’ through our physical distribution, communication and territorial monitoring. Evolution was ‘smart’ in the sense that we cannot sense information we cannot act upon. There was little value to us in increased precision of any of our senses, because it would interfere with decidability, and decidability is limited to to that which is actionable. Conversely, we can augment our senses mechanically and we are able to generalize almost infinitely, and so with sound, smell, vibration, taste, sight, and speed enhancements there is no evidence that we could not process the information. All it would do is reduce our need for numbers to distribute the acts of perception over distance. So I’m hinting here at the error of individualism when judging our senses, perceptions, calculations, and decisions. And that ones judgement of our senses is determined by ones preference for social and political order. And ones preference of social and political order, is a reflection of one’s experiential, reproductive, cooperative, strategy. So if one is hopeful for liberty in a heterogeneous order one sees the limits of senses being the individual. If one sees homogenous kinship order at scale, one sees the limit of the senses being the band, tribe, polity, or nation. If one desires to circumvent an order, or to dominate an order, he may desire additional senses beyond that which he can act upon, and which others can act upon. But if one desires to operate within that order, he desires only to ensure the quality of information within that order. Ergo, I would seek to improve the quality of information within that order. Now, as to ‘illusion’ we can find very little evidence of this. What we find instead is that because of heterogeneous strategies, heterogeneous interests, heterogeneous values, heterogenous information, and outright disinformation, and lack of ability to deflate this heterogeneity, we IMAGINE that we sense and perceive falsely, and we IMAGINE many relations between events, and this CONFUSION may convince us that see very little. But this problem can be solved either by expanding the quality of the information available to an individual despite its in-actionabilty, or we can expand quality of information available to members of the group for both individual and group actionability. Since liberty is only existential when actionable, and actionable only possible in a polity, then the answer is rather obvious… So I want to improve the quality of information in an increasing division of perception, cognition, action knowledge, and advocacy; And given that we cannot know what is true, only what is false; And as far as I know, given the wide variation of cognitive ability, Then, this can only be achieved through providing in environmental context (Institution, tradition, norm, environment and information) that which prohibits DISINFORMATION. Ergo. Natural law in all things. If one has the power to change the narrative (contextual information) and and the metaphysics(assumptions) within it, and the general rules within it, one can choose the degree of truthfulness (deflation) existential in the method of narrative. The only question then is whether one possesses the knowledge to do so, and is willing to pay the higher cost of imposing truthful and deflationary rather than untruthful and conflationary models. -
We Can Improve Our Individual Senses and Not Improve Actionability or We Can Improve Our Environmental Information and Improve Actionability
We process what we can act upon nearly all of the texture, tasted, smell, temperature, physical vibration, sound vibration, electromagnetic ‘vibration’ we can act upon. Like most animals we evolved a distributed ability to ‘sense’ through our physical distribution, communication and territorial monitoring. Evolution was ‘smart’ in the sense that we cannot sense information we cannot act upon. There was little value to us in increased precision of any of our senses, because it would interfere with decidability, and decidability is limited to to that which is actionable. Conversely, we can augment our senses mechanically and we are able to generalize almost infinitely, and so with sound, smell, vibration, taste, sight, and speed enhancements there is no evidence that we could not process the information. All it would do is reduce our need for numbers to distribute the acts of perception over distance. So I’m hinting here at the error of individualism when judging our senses, perceptions, calculations, and decisions. And that ones judgement of our senses is determined by ones preference for social and political order. And ones preference of social and political order, is a reflection of one’s experiential, reproductive, cooperative, strategy. So if one is hopeful for liberty in a heterogeneous order one sees the limits of senses being the individual. If one sees homogenous kinship order at scale, one sees the limit of the senses being the band, tribe, polity, or nation. If one desires to circumvent an order, or to dominate an order, he may desire additional senses beyond that which he can act upon, and which others can act upon. But if one desires to operate within that order, he desires only to ensure the quality of information within that order. Ergo, I would seek to improve the quality of information within that order. Now, as to ‘illusion’ we can find very little evidence of this. What we find instead is that because of heterogeneous strategies, heterogeneous interests, heterogeneous values, heterogenous information, and outright disinformation, and lack of ability to deflate this heterogeneity, we IMAGINE that we sense and perceive falsely, and we IMAGINE many relations between events, and this CONFUSION may convince us that see very little. But this problem can be solved either by expanding the quality of the information available to an individual despite its in-actionabilty, or we can expand quality of information available to members of the group for both individual and group actionability. Since liberty is only existential when actionable, and actionable only possible in a polity, then the answer is rather obvious… So I want to improve the quality of information in an increasing division of perception, cognition, action knowledge, and advocacy; And given that we cannot know what is true, only what is false; And as far as I know, given the wide variation of cognitive ability, Then, this can only be achieved through providing in environmental context (Institution, tradition, norm, environment and information) that which prohibits DISINFORMATION. Ergo. Natural law in all things. If one has the power to change the narrative (contextual information) and and the metaphysics(assumptions) within it, and the general rules within it, one can choose the degree of truthfulness (deflation) existential in the method of narrative. The only question then is whether one possesses the knowledge to do so, and is willing to pay the higher cost of imposing truthful and deflationary rather than untruthful and conflationary models. -
The Joy Of Moral License to Use Violence
Men need moral license. They are all too happy to use violence when they have any chance of survival. There is nothing more spiritual than hunting, and nothing more exciting than hunting men. And once they experience it, they like it so much, they are often hard to return to previous condition. There is nothing more dangerous to a people than the soldiers who return for the peace.
-
The Joy Of Moral License to Use Violence
Men need moral license. They are all too happy to use violence when they have any chance of survival. There is nothing more spiritual than hunting, and nothing more exciting than hunting men. And once they experience it, they like it so much, they are often hard to return to previous condition. There is nothing more dangerous to a people than the soldiers who return for the peace.
-
What Do Men Want From Women?
WHAT DO MEN WANT FROM WOMEN —“CURT: What do men want from women?”— Emotional rewards, friendship, play, sex, affection, nesting-caretaking (feeding especially), family(his own tribe), long term security – since we accumulate much more damage in life. Men have no care except sex until they marry you, and after that they have many many cares more than they evolved to care for. Women can track 1000 little things nearby and in the present. Men track a few things at a distance, and in the future. This is the difference between men and women. We specialize and women generalize. We think in drawers, one open at a time. Women think in a world of nearly uncontrollable interruptions. You consider your emotional care for a man as ‘work’ or ‘cost’ but a man sees everything he does other than live with a few men in a cave, hunting, and playing with tools as a cost in order to obtain affection, care, sex, and the social status that his fellow men demand of him in exchange for trusting him. Men are aware that the vast majority are evolutionarily disposable and the vast majority of women are not. We are aware that we conduct experiments against reality and women select us for sex affection and reproduction depending upon our success as individuals and members of a team (pack). We are also aware of our real chances – and that for the majority of us they are not that good. We are aware that the cost of specialization means men vary more in ability and desirability than women. And that means that many of us must take extraordinary risks and accumulate cellular damage in order to obtain access to any women and any reproduction and any care at all. The testosterone that makes us different will eventually kill all men. It is a magical poison. A faustian bargain with the devil. We mature more slowly, we peak later, we accumulate more damage, and we die sooner. We know this. We are often very careful after 40 for this reason. For these reasons men will seek to produce a diverse meritocratic order with as many opportunities to demonstrate success in climbing the dominance hierarchy as possible. This is why diversity increases crime, violence, and political tension: groups are demonstrably better and worse at climbing dominance hierarchies in the modern world. While we are wealthier, it is increasingly difficult for a man to earn enough of a living to support a woman and her children in exchange for sex and affection. Explaining the world of emotions to us. Explaining the concerns of others to us. Giving us ideas of where and where not to apply our various kinds of ‘force’. Acknowledgement that men’s need for sex is physical, on the scale of women’s need for security. Understanding that ‘reminding’ is nagging, and nagging evolved so that women could train children. But every time you remind a man, it is the equivalent of him telling you that you’re ass is too fat to wear that dress. Every single time. We just suffer the insult more easily than you. But it is an insult and destructive every time. Men are not trained by reminding. They are trained by rewards. It’s not that we don’t care it’s that we are color blind to the categories that you see, just as you are (and you can’t admit it or even recognize it) blind to what we see: politics as a proxy for violence with other men, so that our genes survive into the future in a condition better than they are in the present. Think of many small ways to make your man successful. We are like dogs who will fetch a ball until we drop dead. But like wolves we respond (violently) to commands or guilt. We are not substitutes for girlfriends, nesting helpers, older daughters, your mother or your sisters. We are men. We compete with other men to obtain the status necessary to make us attractive to women, who then care for us in exchange for provision and labor. Limit your nesting urges to that which is productive not consumptive. Consumerism is just a different form of alcoholism. Limit your men’s play to that which provides returns for him and the family. Everything else is extending childhood. Do the same for your boys. Men need fire gazing(daydreaming), watching the horizon for prey(watching sports), or chipping flints (playing with tools) the way women need to chat about nonsense with other women. We can’t function without them, but both can become addictions. Making boys sit and be quiet like girls causes them brain damage that they will never recover from. Making them timit and non-aggressive does the same. Men compete in dominance hierarchies. By making life easy for you by creating a docile boy, you are crippling him for life. You want a man that sits around the house watching video games and television? blame his mother. His wife will blame you for the same. And after four generations your genes will be dispersed and gone. Why? Strong men defeat weak men, and weak men are made by weak women. Demands upon men that are good: If you are slept, fed, dressed, and fucked you need to be getting enough exercise, competing with and cooperating with other men, and producing long term assets for the family. End of story. Women have taken over the ‘easy’ jobs in society pushing men into higher competition roles, where it is harder to ‘integrate’ into the team, and it is harder for males who evolved to specialize, to integrate into teams. This means that there are decreasing chances for many men to find success. We no longer work in groups where we insure one another as we did as laborers, craftsmen, in villages, in guilds, and in armies. every man is more vulnerable now than he has been in the past and is less ‘insured’ by his fellow men. His emotional stress is high but he doesn’t understand why. So what these two things mean, is that men must feel that they can at least not fall down in the dominance hierarchy and therefore loose their ability to obtain sex, affection, and caretaking. Generally speaking, whenever there is a surplus of men who feel this way a civilization will go through a civil war or collapse. Because it takes a very small percentage of males willint to disrupt the current order in order to overthrow it. Men evolved to climb a dominance hierarchy, and women evolved to be attracted to the highest point on that hierarchy that they can obtain control over their reproduction and provision, and entertainment from. Men are absurdly simple creatures. We just can’t see, hear, smell, intuit, feel or think all the subtleties about humans that women can, and so we have more time to devote to learning how the physical world works, and specializing in it, and competing by our understanding and use of it. Curt Doolittle
-
What Do Men Want From Women?
WHAT DO MEN WANT FROM WOMEN —“CURT: What do men want from women?”— Emotional rewards, friendship, play, sex, affection, nesting-caretaking (feeding especially), family(his own tribe), long term security – since we accumulate much more damage in life. Men have no care except sex until they marry you, and after that they have many many cares more than they evolved to care for. Women can track 1000 little things nearby and in the present. Men track a few things at a distance, and in the future. This is the difference between men and women. We specialize and women generalize. We think in drawers, one open at a time. Women think in a world of nearly uncontrollable interruptions. You consider your emotional care for a man as ‘work’ or ‘cost’ but a man sees everything he does other than live with a few men in a cave, hunting, and playing with tools as a cost in order to obtain affection, care, sex, and the social status that his fellow men demand of him in exchange for trusting him. Men are aware that the vast majority are evolutionarily disposable and the vast majority of women are not. We are aware that we conduct experiments against reality and women select us for sex affection and reproduction depending upon our success as individuals and members of a team (pack). We are also aware of our real chances – and that for the majority of us they are not that good. We are aware that the cost of specialization means men vary more in ability and desirability than women. And that means that many of us must take extraordinary risks and accumulate cellular damage in order to obtain access to any women and any reproduction and any care at all. The testosterone that makes us different will eventually kill all men. It is a magical poison. A faustian bargain with the devil. We mature more slowly, we peak later, we accumulate more damage, and we die sooner. We know this. We are often very careful after 40 for this reason. For these reasons men will seek to produce a diverse meritocratic order with as many opportunities to demonstrate success in climbing the dominance hierarchy as possible. This is why diversity increases crime, violence, and political tension: groups are demonstrably better and worse at climbing dominance hierarchies in the modern world. While we are wealthier, it is increasingly difficult for a man to earn enough of a living to support a woman and her children in exchange for sex and affection. Explaining the world of emotions to us. Explaining the concerns of others to us. Giving us ideas of where and where not to apply our various kinds of ‘force’. Acknowledgement that men’s need for sex is physical, on the scale of women’s need for security. Understanding that ‘reminding’ is nagging, and nagging evolved so that women could train children. But every time you remind a man, it is the equivalent of him telling you that you’re ass is too fat to wear that dress. Every single time. We just suffer the insult more easily than you. But it is an insult and destructive every time. Men are not trained by reminding. They are trained by rewards. It’s not that we don’t care it’s that we are color blind to the categories that you see, just as you are (and you can’t admit it or even recognize it) blind to what we see: politics as a proxy for violence with other men, so that our genes survive into the future in a condition better than they are in the present. Think of many small ways to make your man successful. We are like dogs who will fetch a ball until we drop dead. But like wolves we respond (violently) to commands or guilt. We are not substitutes for girlfriends, nesting helpers, older daughters, your mother or your sisters. We are men. We compete with other men to obtain the status necessary to make us attractive to women, who then care for us in exchange for provision and labor. Limit your nesting urges to that which is productive not consumptive. Consumerism is just a different form of alcoholism. Limit your men’s play to that which provides returns for him and the family. Everything else is extending childhood. Do the same for your boys. Men need fire gazing(daydreaming), watching the horizon for prey(watching sports), or chipping flints (playing with tools) the way women need to chat about nonsense with other women. We can’t function without them, but both can become addictions. Making boys sit and be quiet like girls causes them brain damage that they will never recover from. Making them timit and non-aggressive does the same. Men compete in dominance hierarchies. By making life easy for you by creating a docile boy, you are crippling him for life. You want a man that sits around the house watching video games and television? blame his mother. His wife will blame you for the same. And after four generations your genes will be dispersed and gone. Why? Strong men defeat weak men, and weak men are made by weak women. Demands upon men that are good: If you are slept, fed, dressed, and fucked you need to be getting enough exercise, competing with and cooperating with other men, and producing long term assets for the family. End of story. Women have taken over the ‘easy’ jobs in society pushing men into higher competition roles, where it is harder to ‘integrate’ into the team, and it is harder for males who evolved to specialize, to integrate into teams. This means that there are decreasing chances for many men to find success. We no longer work in groups where we insure one another as we did as laborers, craftsmen, in villages, in guilds, and in armies. every man is more vulnerable now than he has been in the past and is less ‘insured’ by his fellow men. His emotional stress is high but he doesn’t understand why. So what these two things mean, is that men must feel that they can at least not fall down in the dominance hierarchy and therefore loose their ability to obtain sex, affection, and caretaking. Generally speaking, whenever there is a surplus of men who feel this way a civilization will go through a civil war or collapse. Because it takes a very small percentage of males willint to disrupt the current order in order to overthrow it. Men evolved to climb a dominance hierarchy, and women evolved to be attracted to the highest point on that hierarchy that they can obtain control over their reproduction and provision, and entertainment from. Men are absurdly simple creatures. We just can’t see, hear, smell, intuit, feel or think all the subtleties about humans that women can, and so we have more time to devote to learning how the physical world works, and specializing in it, and competing by our understanding and use of it. Curt Doolittle
-
“Curt How about working on the positive aspects of female psychology and behavio
—“Curt How about working on the positive aspects of female psychology and behaviour and how to develop them, rather than merely the ‘Women are weak, bad and a dangerous influence if they aren’t controlled’?”—Claire Rae Randall
GREAT QUESTION.
Well, if you go into my past work you see an awful lot of INTERPERSONAL adulation of women. And my history with (a variety) of women sort of speaks for itself. But that is different from the problem of the current era, and the way that we enfranchised women. And that I merely suggest that we give women a separate house so that men and women must agree, since we see such specialized views of the world.
As far as I know all my arguments run back to the same basic idea: that we evolved a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy, and the the major and minor races, civilizations, classes, and genders have chosen specific strategies for doing so, and that the only way to know what is ‘good’ is that which is achievable through trade between people regardless of civilization, clan, class and gender,
But at present the ant-aristocratic, anti white, anti west, anti-male dogma of the marxists, socialists, feminists, and postmodernists, is the dominant ‘status quo’ and I find it necessary to provide an arsenal of arguments to defeat that status quo leaving nothing but VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE that makes use of the information (wants) of all parts of the sense-perceptoin spectrum
So my via-negativa in this subject is just like my via-negativa in every other subject – including my via-negativa against the white supremacists.
I don’t think men have any other opinion than that women are DESIRABLE and that some women are TERRIBLY DESIRABLE and worthy dying for. I think that given the lack of agency, and the high degree of mental illness in women, (just as the high degree of impulsivity and violence in men) that failing to account for these outliers and failing to suppress them in political expression, through demand for demonstrated performance, is the problem.
Yet, exclusion from the group because of ability is not frightening for men – but comforting. But for women, it’s terrifying to be eliminated from the debate. So while it has been possible to limit male participation in the debate over the commons it would be very difficult for women to accept meritocracy as do men.
We have spent 50k years politically domesticating man, and we have spent less than a century politically domesticating women, and it shows.
Ergo, the answer I propose is to produce a market for agency through demonstrated ability in the possession of agency.
And to make use of the information and wants of women of agency and men of agency, and to incrementally suppress and eventually reduce, those people who lack agency.
Thanks.
Adore you.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2017-05-01 12:18:00 UTC