Theme: Agency

  • Why Are Women Often Portrayed As Symbol Of Evil Or Weakness?

    TRUTH IS VERY OFTEN OFFENSIVE. WHICH IS WHY WE MUST SEARCH FOR IT – BECAUSE WE HIDE IT. BUT HERE IS THE ANSWER.

    1. Women (females) evolved gossip, rallying, shaming, trading of care-taking, sex and affection, as a means of manipulation (power), by which to gain control over (much) more powerful males.
    2. Women (females) are not loyal to the tribe (males), as they could be easily stolen by one group or another, and have to survive within that group. Female choice arose late (after pairing-off). For much of our evolutionary history, women were property. To no small degree, our domestication of animals by taking over their dominance hierarchy and controlling their reproduction, followed the domestication of women by the same means. (If that isn’t upsetting to your high mindedness little will be.)
    3. Women can (and often did, and still do) bear one man’s offspring at the cost of another man, thereby depriving him of the ability to trade his productivity for sex, affection, care-taking, and offspring. As many as one third of children ‘appear’ to have been the product of ‘sleeping around’. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. Around 70% of women reproduced in history, but only about 30% of men. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. However, men (out of evolutionary necessity) will demonstrate violence over women first and foremost above all other factors. (yes really). The vast majority of male impulsive violence is somehow connected to females. So female ‘wandering’ is the most dangerous to the tribe of any activity including theft and murder.
    4. Women evolved a very short term set of impulses (low risk tolerance) in order to limit their own cellular damage, and to protect the fragility of children that take so many years to mature into self-sufficiency. Women possess less ‘agency’ because of it. Despite our status as super-predators, or apex predators, Humans are frail and especially frail until maturity. Ergo, women ‘feel’ impulsively and cannot suppress their impulses as easily as men can. Nor are social structures to contain women’s impulses as severe as those of males. The reason being that an impulsive woman can be ignored or beaten,while an impulsive male can be sent off to fight or hunt, but may become too dangerous in the tribe or polity.
    5. So, because of high impulsivity, short term bias, the ability to sway men with sex, affection, care-taking, and the ability to sway men with gossip, rallying, and shaming, women were (and still are, to be honest) considered to be ‘troublemakers’.
    6. We tend to think of taming violence among men as the chief achievement of civlization, but that is not what the evidence tells us. It was equally the use of property and marriage to tame women’s gossip, reproduction, and impulsivity that built civilization. Even today, the root cause of central political conflicts is whether (a) women have a ‘right’ to bear children that they cannot create a family or career to support without forcing others to pay for their ‘freedom’, because the only remaining problem facing mankind at present is population. all problems today are reducible to population problems. (b) whether we advance universalism and dysgenia (the female and underclass reproductive strategy), or particularism and eugenia (the male and upper class reproductive strategy).
    7. Western women have always been ‘freer’ that other women, and we are not exactly sure why. It appears that whites are less clannish (at least circumpolar whites, if not anatolian/iranian). Whites have less testosterone than all but east asians. There is some evidence that white female traits were especially desirable and spread quickly through selection and were integrated through selection into white males. There is some evidence that the scarcity of people in the northern climes, the value of ‘others’ in northern climes for survival; the ‘homogeneity’ of the three or four major waves of europeans plus the limited clannishness simply created a less hostile environment for mate selection. (This is the current hypothesis). It will take another generation of work on genetics before we know the answer for certain. But needless to say, whites (at least northerners) are less ‘clannish’ than all other races and sub-races. Conversely, africans, desert, and steppe peoples appear more clannish and more aggressive than far east and far west peoples. This appears to be due to little more than the scale of the underclasses in warm climates. Without selection pressures the median behavior evolves into a general rule.
    8. So history is hard on women because women in fact are (a) physically weaker, (b) emotionally more impulsive and possessed of less agency (weaker), (c) the cause of hidden constant conflict, if not constrained, (d) un-loyal to the tribe.
    9. Education and participation in the work force has done quite a bit to solve women’s impulsivity but women have, since the introduction of socialism, and the feminist movement as a proxy replacement for socialism, worked consistently to vote (a) to destroy the requirement to form a family (corporation for the production of children), prior to bearing offspring, (b) impoverishing men and causing vast increases in suicide through no fault divorce, alimony, and child support, and heavy increases in taxes that consume 100% of the revenues produced by the addition of women to the work force. (c) harm to the ‘tribe’ by making possible the immigration policies since the 1960’s that achieved through underclass immigration what could not be achieved either through advocacy of socialism, or advocacy of feminism.
    10. The West survived the European civil war we call the World Wars. Yet the West will not likely survive the enfranchisement of women without equal investment in the constraint upon women’s behavior that was developed to constrain men’s behavior over the past 10,000 years.
    11. Pandora deserved her reputation. The question is. Men admit their history. Can women admit theirs? History, biology, and evolution are against it.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-women-often-portrayed-as-symbol-of-evil-or-weakness

  • Why Are Women Often Portrayed As Symbol Of Evil Or Weakness?

    TRUTH IS VERY OFTEN OFFENSIVE. WHICH IS WHY WE MUST SEARCH FOR IT – BECAUSE WE HIDE IT. BUT HERE IS THE ANSWER.

    1. Women (females) evolved gossip, rallying, shaming, trading of care-taking, sex and affection, as a means of manipulation (power), by which to gain control over (much) more powerful males.
    2. Women (females) are not loyal to the tribe (males), as they could be easily stolen by one group or another, and have to survive within that group. Female choice arose late (after pairing-off). For much of our evolutionary history, women were property. To no small degree, our domestication of animals by taking over their dominance hierarchy and controlling their reproduction, followed the domestication of women by the same means. (If that isn’t upsetting to your high mindedness little will be.)
    3. Women can (and often did, and still do) bear one man’s offspring at the cost of another man, thereby depriving him of the ability to trade his productivity for sex, affection, care-taking, and offspring. As many as one third of children ‘appear’ to have been the product of ‘sleeping around’. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. Around 70% of women reproduced in history, but only about 30% of men. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. However, men (out of evolutionary necessity) will demonstrate violence over women first and foremost above all other factors. (yes really). The vast majority of male impulsive violence is somehow connected to females. So female ‘wandering’ is the most dangerous to the tribe of any activity including theft and murder.
    4. Women evolved a very short term set of impulses (low risk tolerance) in order to limit their own cellular damage, and to protect the fragility of children that take so many years to mature into self-sufficiency. Women possess less ‘agency’ because of it. Despite our status as super-predators, or apex predators, Humans are frail and especially frail until maturity. Ergo, women ‘feel’ impulsively and cannot suppress their impulses as easily as men can. Nor are social structures to contain women’s impulses as severe as those of males. The reason being that an impulsive woman can be ignored or beaten,while an impulsive male can be sent off to fight or hunt, but may become too dangerous in the tribe or polity.
    5. So, because of high impulsivity, short term bias, the ability to sway men with sex, affection, care-taking, and the ability to sway men with gossip, rallying, and shaming, women were (and still are, to be honest) considered to be ‘troublemakers’.
    6. We tend to think of taming violence among men as the chief achievement of civlization, but that is not what the evidence tells us. It was equally the use of property and marriage to tame women’s gossip, reproduction, and impulsivity that built civilization. Even today, the root cause of central political conflicts is whether (a) women have a ‘right’ to bear children that they cannot create a family or career to support without forcing others to pay for their ‘freedom’, because the only remaining problem facing mankind at present is population. all problems today are reducible to population problems. (b) whether we advance universalism and dysgenia (the female and underclass reproductive strategy), or particularism and eugenia (the male and upper class reproductive strategy).
    7. Western women have always been ‘freer’ that other women, and we are not exactly sure why. It appears that whites are less clannish (at least circumpolar whites, if not anatolian/iranian). Whites have less testosterone than all but east asians. There is some evidence that white female traits were especially desirable and spread quickly through selection and were integrated through selection into white males. There is some evidence that the scarcity of people in the northern climes, the value of ‘others’ in northern climes for survival; the ‘homogeneity’ of the three or four major waves of europeans plus the limited clannishness simply created a less hostile environment for mate selection. (This is the current hypothesis). It will take another generation of work on genetics before we know the answer for certain. But needless to say, whites (at least northerners) are less ‘clannish’ than all other races and sub-races. Conversely, africans, desert, and steppe peoples appear more clannish and more aggressive than far east and far west peoples. This appears to be due to little more than the scale of the underclasses in warm climates. Without selection pressures the median behavior evolves into a general rule.
    8. So history is hard on women because women in fact are (a) physically weaker, (b) emotionally more impulsive and possessed of less agency (weaker), (c) the cause of hidden constant conflict, if not constrained, (d) un-loyal to the tribe.
    9. Education and participation in the work force has done quite a bit to solve women’s impulsivity but women have, since the introduction of socialism, and the feminist movement as a proxy replacement for socialism, worked consistently to vote (a) to destroy the requirement to form a family (corporation for the production of children), prior to bearing offspring, (b) impoverishing men and causing vast increases in suicide through no fault divorce, alimony, and child support, and heavy increases in taxes that consume 100% of the revenues produced by the addition of women to the work force. (c) harm to the ‘tribe’ by making possible the immigration policies since the 1960’s that achieved through underclass immigration what could not be achieved either through advocacy of socialism, or advocacy of feminism.
    10. The West survived the European civil war we call the World Wars. Yet the West will not likely survive the enfranchisement of women without equal investment in the constraint upon women’s behavior that was developed to constrain men’s behavior over the past 10,000 years.
    11. Pandora deserved her reputation. The question is. Men admit their history. Can women admit theirs? History, biology, and evolution are against it.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-women-often-portrayed-as-symbol-of-evil-or-weakness

  • “Libertarian economics is predicted by two factors: high IQ and low Big 5 Agreea

    —“Libertarian economics is predicted by two factors: high IQ and low Big 5 Agreeableness. The so-called Dark Triad are really just a bunch of ways to be low Agreeableness. Psychopathy is just low Agreeableness/low Conscientiousness. Narcissism is low Agreeableness/high Extraversion. Some people are led to libertarian economic positions by extreme smarts, but others just by not giving a tinker’s damn about other people. C’est la vie.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-23 18:54:00 UTC

  • IT ALL MAKES SENSE IF YOU TELL THE EMPIRICAL TRUTH ABOUT MAN. (possibly shocking

    IT ALL MAKES SENSE IF YOU TELL THE EMPIRICAL TRUTH ABOUT MAN.

    (possibly shocking)

    If you have negative rights (rule of law) that does not mean you have demonstrated capacity for positive rights (the right to influence others). Only that you are not a harm to others.

    .

    The payment of negative rights by doing nothing BAD buys you access to the market and juridical defense in the courts: freedom.

    What do you do to demonstrate ADEQUACY that you are equally capable of access to physical property and the security and preservation f the commons? (LIBERTY)

    What do you demonstrate that in itself demonstrates that you are capable of doing something GOOD by the non-harmful use of positive rights? (voting) (SOVEREIGNTY)

    Pay your way to freedom and juridical defense: non-imposition of costs.

    Pay your way to liberty and property ownership: service in defense, emergency, and the preservation of the peace (every man a sheriff).

    Pay your way to Sovereignty and the decisions about the polity: service, family, property(territory), industry (the employment of others.)

    Pay your way into Aristocracy: the intergenerational preservation of all of the above.

    child or beast(pre-human) > slave(youth) > serf(soldier) > freeman(citizen) > liberty(responsibility) > sovereignty(choice) > aristocracy(rule).


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-21 19:42:00 UTC

  • First Questions of Personal, Ethical, Political Philosophy?

    —” Does “why shouldn’t I kill myself?” Qualifies as political question? Or polarity is internal here?”—Mea Culba 1) PERSONAL Q: First question of philosophy why do I not commit suicide? A: possibility for acquisition and influence (power) 2) ETHICAL Q: First question of ethics: why do I not kill you and take your things? A: Because cooperation is lower cost and higher return 3) POLITICAL Q: First question of politics: why do we not kill you and enslave your wives and daughters? A: Because it is much lower cost and much higher return. 4) TO WHAT DEGREE DO WE COOPERATE? 1) Why don’t I fight with you? 2) Why don’t I steal from you? 3) Why don’t I trade with you? 4) Why don’t I finance with you? 5) Why don’t I (exchange-or-create norms) with you? 6) Why don’t I create laws (government) with you? 7) Why don’t I cohabitate with you? 8) Why don’t I reproduce with you? BECAUSE I DON”T TRUST YOU ENOUGH TO COOPERATE THAT *MUCH* WITH YOU.

  • First Questions of Personal, Ethical, Political Philosophy?

    —” Does “why shouldn’t I kill myself?” Qualifies as political question? Or polarity is internal here?”—Mea Culba 1) PERSONAL Q: First question of philosophy why do I not commit suicide? A: possibility for acquisition and influence (power) 2) ETHICAL Q: First question of ethics: why do I not kill you and take your things? A: Because cooperation is lower cost and higher return 3) POLITICAL Q: First question of politics: why do we not kill you and enslave your wives and daughters? A: Because it is much lower cost and much higher return. 4) TO WHAT DEGREE DO WE COOPERATE? 1) Why don’t I fight with you? 2) Why don’t I steal from you? 3) Why don’t I trade with you? 4) Why don’t I finance with you? 5) Why don’t I (exchange-or-create norms) with you? 6) Why don’t I create laws (government) with you? 7) Why don’t I cohabitate with you? 8) Why don’t I reproduce with you? BECAUSE I DON”T TRUST YOU ENOUGH TO COOPERATE THAT *MUCH* WITH YOU.

  • Consent?

    CONSENT? We can’t hold people to specific implicit consent because we can’t really state that they understood what they were doing. What we tend to do is hold people account for continuous implicit consent because they can’t say they didn’t understand. this is how the law works today. You can demonstrate your consent by benefiting from something. You cannot demonstrate your consent to some specific agreement that you may or may not have understood. This is why board members and all sorts of organiations vote. It’s a claim that ‘I understand’. This is not true in government and that’s a problem. If liablity were applicable to polticians like it is to boards and officers then we woould ahve 1% of the political problems that we do.

  • Consent?

    CONSENT? We can’t hold people to specific implicit consent because we can’t really state that they understood what they were doing. What we tend to do is hold people account for continuous implicit consent because they can’t say they didn’t understand. this is how the law works today. You can demonstrate your consent by benefiting from something. You cannot demonstrate your consent to some specific agreement that you may or may not have understood. This is why board members and all sorts of organiations vote. It’s a claim that ‘I understand’. This is not true in government and that’s a problem. If liablity were applicable to polticians like it is to boards and officers then we woould ahve 1% of the political problems that we do.

  • Imagine a Very Different World

    Apr 18, 2017 11:29am IMAGINE A VERY DIFFERENT WORLD…. Imagine how much smarter you would be, the entire population would be, if the same increase in intelligence made possible by physical science was made possible by operational science? In other words, imaging how much smarter people were after literacy. (about a full standard deviation) Imagine how much smarter people were after mass education in the sciences. (about a full standard deviation) We have some idea how much dumber people are because of NOT teaching history, economics, grammar, logic, rhetoric. What would happen if instead of being saturated by lies, you lived your life in a world of informational truths – at least in the commons. (I suspect it would produce a full standard deviation). Your IQ is a genetic thing, but the application of it is dependent upon the quality and quantity of information MINUS the effort you expend in falsification of it. If the market for goods, services, and information, increases in productivity and quality (and our assumption about man as well) increases in optimism, undrer the incremental expansion of law from violence to theft, to fraud, to disinformation… then why ca’nt we do the same with information by the same means? Why is it so hard to ask for journalists, public intellectuals, and politicians, all of whom distribute information into the market, to warranty their speech the same way we warranty goods, services, and other information that can cause harm? Are you saying that more harm is done by marketers than is done by politicians and intellectuals, and journalists? Are you crazy? these people almost to a man, lie for a living.

  • Imagine a Very Different World

    Apr 18, 2017 11:29am IMAGINE A VERY DIFFERENT WORLD…. Imagine how much smarter you would be, the entire population would be, if the same increase in intelligence made possible by physical science was made possible by operational science? In other words, imaging how much smarter people were after literacy. (about a full standard deviation) Imagine how much smarter people were after mass education in the sciences. (about a full standard deviation) We have some idea how much dumber people are because of NOT teaching history, economics, grammar, logic, rhetoric. What would happen if instead of being saturated by lies, you lived your life in a world of informational truths – at least in the commons. (I suspect it would produce a full standard deviation). Your IQ is a genetic thing, but the application of it is dependent upon the quality and quantity of information MINUS the effort you expend in falsification of it. If the market for goods, services, and information, increases in productivity and quality (and our assumption about man as well) increases in optimism, undrer the incremental expansion of law from violence to theft, to fraud, to disinformation… then why ca’nt we do the same with information by the same means? Why is it so hard to ask for journalists, public intellectuals, and politicians, all of whom distribute information into the market, to warranty their speech the same way we warranty goods, services, and other information that can cause harm? Are you saying that more harm is done by marketers than is done by politicians and intellectuals, and journalists? Are you crazy? these people almost to a man, lie for a living.