( I mean, I love libertarians, but you know, I love women also. There are plenty of people with intellectual honesty, moral ambitions, and love in their hearts. That doesn’t change the fact that the evidence is what it is. People are merely rational. They are not good. They are not bad. They will act good or bad depending upon the incentives. And this is why libertarians are morally blind. Not as morally blind as progressives, but morally blind. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 20:31:00 UTC
Josh Jeppson —“It’s stereotypical at this point, but perhaps because it’s largely true: intuitive minds are the best at penetrative insights before others get there, and serial/hyperlogical minds are best at double-checking the visionaries’ claims.”—-
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 18:14:00 UTC
FIVE PROPERTIES OF DEMONSTRATED INTELLIGENCE
Demonstrated intelligence consists of a set of primary functions any one of which will fail you, but if none of them fails, compensates substantially for differences in IQ.
All people with demonstrated intelligence are the same, all demonstratedly unintelligent people are different.
1 – Intelligence, esp, verbal. (rate you reduce information to patterns)
2 – short term memory (the ability to maintain states, and therefore sustain comparative searches and comparisons)
3 – general knowledge (inventory of patterns that intelligence can search for patterns)
4 – “wants”, (wanting correspondence with or difference from reality, or force you to select general knowledge that confirms the biases.)
5 – genetic intuitions (genetic influences that harmfully bias wants)
If all of these work to some degree you will be functionally intelligent’ regardless of your IQ. If any one of these is substantially defective it will not matter what your IQ is.
BY ANALOGY, DOMESTICATABLE ANIMALS:
All domesticatable animals are the same, all undomesticatable animals are different.
1 – cannot be picky eaters
2 – reach maturity quickly
3 – willing to breed in captivity
4 – docile by nature
5 – conform to a social hierarchy
If any one of these fails the animal is not domesticatable (in numbers).
BY ANALOGY, HAPPY FAMILIES
“all happy families are the same, all unhappy families are different”. As Dostoyevsky stated, if any one of the criteria for a happy family is absent the family will be unhappy.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 17:12:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/Whats-it-like-to-have-a-150-IQ-Is-life-easierI dunno. I think I attribute most of my issues are the delayed emotional maturity due to autism, and not IQ itself. The issues are all social and career issues.
BADS
(a) I cannot ‘switch gears’. and even lateral thinking is hard for me. I had to learn how to do it. Even so, if I look at my life’s failures, they are all failures of cutting bait (switching gears) because I can see solutions, but they are not achievable with the people (resources) at my disposal. And amplified because I cannot judge other people well. Every failure I have in my life is due to a combination of inability to switch gears, inability to judge others, but the ability to find solutions, and then misjudging the cost of others ability to achieve them. I try to do too much with people.
(b) I had to work very, very, hard a socialization. I still do. It seems like I am very good at it. but it’s not natural. I taught myself ‘small talk’, and how to enjoy it.
(c) I like to ‘fit in’. I like people. But it’s very *lonely*. Although I think the internet has made it easier for all of us to find each other.
(d) it is nearly impossible to work for anyone, because they seem so stupid that it’s just painful. And I cannot feign otherwise (for long).
(e) getting hired is almost impossible since you’re incomprehensible and hard to imagine ‘fitting in’. Particularly if you want a ‘joe job’ where you have time to think. It’s like you have no choice except sales, leadership, and management. All of which consume think-time. Conversely you can’t do jobs like accounting since they’re so tedious and boring that you can’t stand it.
(f) the dating pool is very, very, limited unless you work at training yourself (i did, and still do). And what I value isn’t necessarily present in other high iq women. I like femininity.
(g) i used to be very impatient with people, and it was by a very christian like ‘infinite tolerance and love’ that I learned to both love, tolerate, and enjoy others. In my 20’s I changed from frustration to outright trying to help every person I met in even the smallest way possible even if it meant just helping them smile. I worked hard to be a teacher rather than a judge. And it was soooooo good for me that it changed my life dramatically. “The world is built for average people” it is not built for us. We are a luxury good for man. They in the middle are the reproductive evolutionary necessity. And the people at the bottom an impediment.
(h) I cannot read people, judge people, and need ‘a woman’ around to do that for me. In fact, I am highly dependent upon women for providing me with ‘human’ information. I can use it well once I have it but i cannot ‘sense’ it.
(j) I overestimate people all the time and I can’t stop it, becuase I can’t at all distinguish between what is obvious to me and what is not obvious to others. I mean…. this is one of my major failures.
GOODS
(a) Impatience with everything is an issue. I can’t do anything where there are a lot of external dependencies, or things that require a lot of wrote repetition. I have to feel continuous evolution or I get frustrated.
(b) I see (sense) patterns ‘on the limits (off in the far distance) immediately, and I think in patterns very, very, very quickly. (You wouldn’t believe how fast I can read a paper, digest it, and write a response to it.)
(c) learning certain things is trivial (stuff you need to sense distant causal relations), some easy, (stuff you need to imagine or model). But learning other things not (stuff you need to feel), or stuff you need to remember (morse code). Hence my interest in philosophy(information accumulation by ‘wide domain searching’) vs chess (information accumulation by ‘narrow domain searching’). This is a bit like saying intuition(wide searching) vs reason(narrow seraching). I am definitely an intuitionistic (INTP) not rational (INTJ) thinker. And why I like to work in teams with a conservative(skeptical) woman, and a man who is an INTJ. I don’t really ‘work’ the way an INTJ thinker works. I just put information in and the ‘demon’ (autistic O.C.D.) does all the work because it hates not understanding ‘order’.
Hence why I say I am not sure I am all that smart, I am just ‘gifted’. Smart people in my view have superior short term memories, and so are good stateful activities like math. I’m not ‘smart’. I consider myself more of a genius (that isn’t a compliment) it means that it’s a gift, not a disciplined thinker. What I have done is learn to ‘not try to be smart’ but to just ‘take time’. It’s a ‘creative’ not analytic cognitive process. Hence I am slower than ‘smart people’ at solvable tasks, faster at identifying patterns, I will absolutely positively solve the unsolvable tasks. Thats the thing: I *WILL* “figure it out”. Period. Doesn’t matter what domain its in. I will master the field, and find that answer. But if you want someone to calculate a tactic rather than to identify a strategy I’m the wrong guy.
(c) it is impossible to really be bored. I used to keep a book with me at all times to prevent having ‘anger issues’. Now I have enough in my head I can run on my own memories.
(d) material wants are very limited. Unfortunately it took me a long time to realize that i don’t really need to be wealthy to think for a living. I just need to want fewer material things to acquire, own, and maintain. Living overseas in one room in a hotel with nothing but technology and my wardrobe helped me understand that.
(e) competing in business is …. so easy it’s …almost not worthwhile. In fact, at this point, business problems are almost entirely an issue of convincing dumber people what they need to do, and convincing those who cannot sense see or understand a vision on the horizon of its outrageous returns in exchange for limited inputs.
Net is that all the problems are social. Otherwise gifts are nice.
That’s what I got….
(h/t David Mondrus )
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 15:23:00 UTC
The reason for festivals and rituals is to provide opportunities for those for whom suppression of impulse is very costly to recharge their inventory of discipline in an environment that is sanctioned by the polity, while under their eye, showing you are not a danger to them; and to provide opportunities to learn the suppression of impulses necessary for the polity through safety and insurance in its shelter. And to demonstrate one is worthy of their sanction. The reason for law is to punish those impulses where not sanctioned by the polity. Both the sanction of excesses and the practice of indoctrination into the sacred, use the pack response to bind us through ‘thick plenty, and thin scarcity’.
Men demonstrate the behavior of pack animals, and women, herd animals. But these are non-trivial emotions we feel. And our celebrations of release in plenty, and disciplines of sanctity in scarcity provide opportunity for outliers to show themselves, and opportunity for everyone else to find sanction, and opportunity for our elites to provide venues for their imitation.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 14:09:00 UTC
Life Lesson: Don’t get in the way of women doing their work.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 11:53:00 UTC
TRUTH GIVES YOU, AND US, POWER
(interesting)
It’s not that I don’t make mistakes. I do. Often. Or that I’m all that arrogant (other than when it suits marketing purposes). It’s that it’s simply very, very, very, hard to use testimonialism and propertarianism and not become aware of your errors, biases, wishful thinking, attempts at suggestion, obscurantism, overloading, and deceit. It allows you to dramatically increase the ratio of true and false propositions.
There is no substitute however for the market for criticism by equally testimonial means. One simply cannot think of everything on one’s own.
So I find most of my errors are errors of interpretation of others, or of historical facts that I use as illustrations and examples. These are errors of meaning, not errors of construction.
But even in construction, when we are subjectively testing the incentives that cause the decisions of others, we can be easily ignorant of the factors involved (inputs) that the individual is weighing. it is very easy to judge one’s misrepresentation of those weights, but if we are not aware of them we cannot subjectively test (judge) them.
This is why discourse, jury, and market are so effective in improving our polities, commons, products, services, and information **IF** they consist of testimonial language and warranty (truth) … and why they are so destructive in its absence: because self correction is not only difficult but increasingly impossible. And manipulation by others is so trivially easy.
The most expensive commons we have built in the west is truth telling (testimony), in an effort to maintain the high trust (militia) polity. A Sovereignty requires Militia, Militia requires trust, trust requires truth, and truth produces all the amazing consequences we attribute to western civlization: under economic adversity we innovate faster than the rest.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 11:46:00 UTC
ADD A DIFFERENCE IN AGENCY AND COST TO THE GENDERS
The whole (a) Agency ( Left-lacks-agency vs Right-has-agency) concept provides just as much explanatory power as (b) the solipsism vs autism, (c) the intertemporal division of reproductive perception, cognition and labor, (d) the competing but compatible differences in reproductive costs, and (c) R/K (herd/pack) selection analogy.
But all those statements fall prey to our metaphysical acceptance of some sort of equality, when instead, the consequences of this effect are similar to the evidence of differences in investment strategy: women invest more conservatively (they take less risk) and men more aggressively. So women tend to do better, especially when they work in groups (investment clubs).
But this is to ignore causality: only men would create a stock market (risk market) containing a sub-market of low risk stocks. Otherwise we would only have investment, bond, and banking industries but no stock market. The stock market functions on speculation and risk calculation. The externality produced by that market is a set of lower risk stocks that those with lower risk tolerance can profit from.
We see the same thing in claims that women are more civilized. But this is nonsense. Men create civilization by absorbing the majority of stress, damage, and risk.
Men must defeat the dark forces of time and ignorance. Women must just make use of what ‘gets through our shield-wall’.
So while women bear higher reproductive production costs. Men bear higher defense, management, and research and development costs.
And the evidence is that the man’s cost is higher…..
Civilization is not so much in our interest as it is in our mother’s sisters, wives, and daughter’s. Otherwise. hunting other humans is higher risk but greater enjoyment – and often greater reward.
Assuming that research and development was invested in weaponry, mobility, fitness, cooperation, and skill.
Full accounting means never taking any assumptions about natural order for granted.
Man is a rational creature who chooses rational ends. That is all.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 17:00:00 UTC
YES THE STOIC REVIVAL IS DETERMINISTICALLY OCCURRING
Stoic revival is happening and can be accelerated. It requires no mysticism, no ‘belief’ (suspension of reason), only discipline. And as such it can be taught as a ‘scientific discipline’, a ‘philosophy’, or a personal religion.
We cannot hold the ancients responsible for ‘mysticism’ because just as we use pseudoscience and pseudorationalism today they had no other means of explanation available to them
What’s important is that they attempted to find a way of competing with, succeeding in the world, rather than ignoring it, or escaping it, or denying it – like other cultures did.
Stoicism is action oriented. it asks you to improve your own human capital (virtues). Through acting. Through gradual achievement. But it allows one to ignore the judgements/opinions of others. That this is simply the internalization of natural law is not obvious.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 10:45:00 UTC
sentience > awareness > cognition > language > reason > logic > mathematics > operations.
I am not sure anyone says language is required for cognition. Only that as we progress from cognition through language through reason etc we are increasingly distancing ourselves from sympathetic tests and moving towards entirely analytic tests. Most of this progression is limited by the ability to hold a concept (context) in short term memory (focus), independently of external stimuli (impulse), long enough to iterate through opportunities (search memory, find patterns, wayfind, then falsify (search for negative consequences.).
IMHO: language is not necessary, only visualization or perhaps better said, ‘experiential revisitation” which we can observe and judge.
The problem is that without language one cannot develop complex narratives, write them down, or use symbols. But that’s a qualification on top of the original claim: it’s probably correct to say that cognition does not require language, only that language improves our cognitive ability and is so (incredibly) valuable as a competitive technology that there is greater consequence to verbal (SYMBOLIC is what it means), cognition than EXPERIENTIAL cognition. And speech appears to be the gateway humans found for moving from experiential cognition to symbolic cognition.
Source date (UTC): 2017-01-16 10:06:00 UTC