—“Again, women don’t have political agency. They’re simply not culpable and I don’t see what that sort of arguing leads to.”—Simon Ström
(and men don’t have child-rearing instincts (empathy) as a cost of obtaining our agency)
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 09:01:00 UTC
LIES WE SEEK TO TELL: THE BIASES BUILT UPON OUR ANCIENT ‘CIRCUITS’
by William Butchman
“the lies they seek to tell”
Human bias is interesting. We have evolved machinery in our brains, and we are processing novel situations with these ancient systems, processing things that they were never designed to process. We use these mental models which are simplistic, and when something happens in the universe which breaks our model (because we don’t account for it) we ‘startle’ and a circuit built for snakes is activated. (I don’t know if I have this exactly right, I’ve only heard it once)
(From elsewhere:)
Why we believe snakes are the most evil things: Dr. Peterson suggested that the reason why we have a particular antipathy towards snakes is because we’ve long been their prey (since our ancestors were tiny rodents). I believe our fear and terror and hatred of snakes might also be particularly strong because they continued to kill us long after we outgrew the other reptilian predators (once you’ve evolved to be monkey-sized, you can handle lizards because you’re big enough to fight them and you can see far enough around you to avoid them. But you can’t see so well around your feet or the topside of tall branches, aka where snakes lurk. The threats we fear most are the ones we can’t see, Snakes happen to fit into all the hard to see places. There’s also something particularly traumatizing about having one of your primate relatives eaten by a snake as opposed to any other predator. Their deaths are the most agonizing. Unlike one of those big cats with teeth evolved to puncture skulls or a wolf that goes for the jugular, snakes kill by poison or suffocation and they swallow prey whole. Oftentimes over the course of several hours. Prior to human inventiveness, I can’t imagine a more torturous and agonizing way to die.
Snakes: these surprising dangers that lurk and jump out at us. We startle as we try to assess, an ancient circuit is activated. So, we have a bias to express the unknown, dangers, as snakes.
At least this is the evolutionary theory of the prevalence of the mythology. So, I can see (if this is true) how our biases may be built on ancient circuits.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-16 16:51:00 UTC
LYING BY INTENT, OR LYING BY LACKING DISCIPLINE AND AGENCY?
FYI: On “Lying” our position is that our genes drive our intuition, and our intuition biases our reason, such that we are constantly negotiating on behalf of our reproductive strategy and are entirely unconscious of it. Therefore we seek to produce ‘agency’ under which we are free of the genes, the intuition(elephant), and that our reason (Rider) is in control. (think of it as a very scientific take on stoicism. So in this sense it is quite easy for people who have not achieved agency (insulation from our genes and intuition) to lie by NOT working sufficiently to possess agency, and therefore remaining an attractor, and distributor of falsehoods (lies). And so just as you must carefully examine your senses to speak honestly, you must carefully develop the skill of truthfulness so that you do not attract and distribute lies and falsehoods. -cheers
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-16 16:46:00 UTC
We don’t ask cooperation of beasts
We don’t ask cooperation of domesticated animals.
We don’t ask cooperation of pets
We don’t ask cooperation of children
We don’t ask cooperation of the incapable
We don’t ask cooperation of those without agency.
We ask little cooperation of those who request subsidy.
We ask more cooperation of those who request freedom.
We ask even more cooperation from those who request liberty.
We desire the full cooperation of those who possess agency.
We require and cannot avoid the full cooperation of those who desire sovereignty.
The few rule the many, to transcend mankind.
We can rule and transcend, or be ruled and fail to.
We can possess sovereignty in fact, or something less by permission.
But to possess sovereignty requires we possess agency.
And to possess agency we must possess the ability, the knowledge, the fitness and will…
… the will to fight, kill, slaughter, and destroy.
There is no transcendence, no sovereignty, no agency for the weak, the cowardly, the timid, or the dim. And no liberty, nor freedom, nor subsidy for others if we fail.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-16 15:26:00 UTC
SPEAKING IN OPERATIONAL GRAMMAR IS A TEST OF AGENCY
It is very hard to migrate from thinking in terms of:
1 – meaning or experience to your self
2 – empathy for or meaning to others
3 – empathy with others intentions
INTO
4 – nothing but objective statements of incentives, actors, actions, and consequences.
NOTE:
The degree with which you can do this kind of speech is a DIRECT MEASURE OF YOUR OWN AGENCY.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-16 15:17:00 UTC
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A GOD?
The, first, shocking Question of teaching natural law (propertarianism).
To possess perfect agency, and perfect sovereignty?
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-16 15:13:00 UTC
THE ANSWER YOU”RE LOOKING FOR IN TWO PARTS
1) In no small part, a male is produced by damaging the gender-neutral fetus in utero, so that males mature more slowly, and develop a bias toward specialization while females a bias toward generalization.
This ‘damage’ by the mother in utero (likely due to testosterone), produces both less sensitive and therefore less ‘struggle for life’ by male infants, plus delays verbal and other sensitive development, which is why males both specialize (they must learn rather than feel), and why males mature more slowly than females both physically, emotionally, and mentally. But in exchange gain more ‘agency’ (less victims of emotion) and greater ability to perceive the physical world ‘as it is’.
So, males have a lower survival rate.
2) Plus (as others have mentioned) the benefit of male children decreases as the ratio approaches 1 to 1.
3) Males are genetically expendable (and women treat us as such) since the genome improves if only the fittest survive. This may explain why we are still evolving but it is possible that we reached ‘peak human’ already, and that since agrarianism, and later, with urbanization, (because cities are defect creators).
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-14 14:01:00 UTC
(from elsewhere)
( Getting rich provides evidence of ability, and gives you freedom from the company of unnecessary idiocy, but it doesn’t necessarily make you happy. Owning your own home in a neighborhood that you don’t worry about, having at least a year’s salary in the bank, and not stressing about anything, is about as good as it gets. Personally I prefer to own nothing other than a car, a safety deposit box, a foreign bank account, and my time. ‘stuff’ isn’t good for anything.)
My opinion at this stage of my life is that you should limit your expenses, particularly debt, and maximize your friends, family, and experiences.
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-13 22:09:00 UTC
Because they’re idealistic, ignorant, impatient, seeking a means of ‘choosing’ what is right and wrong in order to gain a sense of independence.
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-teens-so-influenced-by-communism-socialism-fascism-or-anarcho-capitalism
Plenty of people have. This one is readable:
I.Q. ranges and real-life functioning.
As a general rule, IQ affects rate and therefore cost of learning, but also affects everything else like longevity, health, accidents, and income.
And I find it most helpful to speak in those terms. For about every ten points in IQ we dramatically change the ability of people to learn.
BELOW AVERAGE
AVERAGE
ABOVE AVERAGE
INTELLIGENT
RULES OF THUMB
HEDGING A BIT
But let me qualify it a bit and say that while the theory of multiple intelligences is nonsense, intelligence is just one property of personality that affects demonstrated behavior.
The combinations of low impulsivity, high conscientiousness, and high intelligence need to go together. One can be less intelligent, but highly disciplined, conscientious, and work very hard, and someone can be highly intelligent, impulsive, and devoid of conscientiousness.
A lot of things must ‘go right’ for high intelligence to produce positive outcomes in life. (the good stuff kicks in at 115 and above). A lot of things can ‘go wrong’ and we end up with dim(90’s), dangerous (80’s), and untrainable (70’s and below).
For example, I read Neal Ferguson and I realize he has a better memory than I do and is more organized. I read Hayek and identify myself almost perfectly in every way – even speech pattern. I read Chomsky and it’s obvious he’s more intelligent than I am. But of those people the most ‘whole’ or ‘balanced’ person is definitely Ferguson.
There are people I can tell are quite a bit faster than I am especially at mathematical operations, or maintaining sets of states in short term memory. And others who have higher reading comprehension than I do – and greater patience with it. But what I see most often is that people with increasingly high ‘scores’ tend to possess side effects. Not all of them (Norman Schwartzkopf).
So this is why being smart isn’t enough. And this is why the ‘great families’ control reproduction and marriage so carefully, and only hand down assets to those that demonstrate performance. It’s hard work to make things ‘go right’ for generations.
Thankfully we tend to marry and reproduce within genetic classes if not within social and economic classes, and this tends to limit the damage done by the lower classes to the gene pool. That was until redistribution which took rates of reproduction from the working, middle, and upper classes and replaced it with reproduction and immigration from the lower classes.
It matters more for a society to have the smallest possible number of people at the bottom than it does to increase the number of people at the top. Context in everything affects everything else.
And in real life, it matters more that you have few “bads”, than that you have tremendously outlying “goods”.
FWIW: the evidence is clear that average people are almost always far happier than smart people. Mostly, we’re frustrated. The world doesn’t exist for us. We’re tools for the majority. And the world exists for them.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
https://www.quora.com/Has-anyone-described-a-simple-IQ-capability-table