Jan 14, 2020, 4:27 PM by Bill Joslin (important) (riffing of post shared below) (note the multiple dimensions common in propertarian analysis) 1) Production Distribution: Whereby the square root of the population accounts for 50% of productivity (thanks Heavens Wolves for these connections). 2) Lower Power Distance = Greater Chance of Trust. Power distance index: whereby some people have a predilection to trust immediate leaders (personally known) , other are amiable to trust leaders at high distance (impersonal). 3) Lower Power Distance = Greater Agency Hierarchies that “chunk” into smaller units and delegate power (agency) into the smaller chunks, while maintaining accountability (risk) for the outcome, recursively maintain lower power distance relationships across a larger organizational structure. 4) Lower Power Distance = Easier to emulate those we trust. Lower power distance afford lower members the opportunity to emulate leaders which they have access to (my sargent, my supervisor etc) which increases their agency and calls them forward to become leaders. 5) Lower Power Distance = Greater opportunity for expression of excellence. By chunking, the square root of a smaller group, on the aggregate across many groups, produces more super performers. (a group of nine will have 3 super performers. a group of 100 will have 10 super performers – 10 groups of 9 will have 30 super performers by the standard of a single group of 90) 6) High power distance = obedience over trust. Those with higher power distance preferences, produce larger groups which delegate from one to many (one leader to 100 or 1000 men with no ranks between) 7) High Power Distance = lower agency. They do not capture the square root potential of recursive groups, which mean few super performers are available for emulation – to wit they have little to no proximity or exposure. This reduces their ability to increase agency at the same time, encourages dependence on the leaders (also known as demand for authority) 8) Western Hierarchies = produce velocity and agency. The west, via militias and presumption of individual sovereignty, has allowed low power distance individuals to organize at larger scales. in doing so has captured more benefit from the square root performance distribution. the result has been velocity. So now I can make my point: 9) Western Social Cohesion = via proximity, delegated agency, distributed accountability. This structure of chunked groups with delegated agency, bound by accountability, allowed us to emulate and respect our betters and inspires us to become them… at the same time as being able to have a higher resolution (and speed) in applying accountability. This becomes of paramount importance in maintaining cooperative class structures. Because class structures are no different from military structures Respect and reward where due, disrespect and correction where due. HOW DOES INTELLIGENCE ENTER THIS? 10) Communication breaks down across 2 Standard Deviations. A standard Deviation is 15 points. 11) Lower power distance, via “chunking” allows for IQ-capture across scales. A general (IQ 145+) communicates to a senior officer (IQ 130+) who communicates to an officer (120+) who communicates to an NCO (110+) who communicates to the soldier (IQ 85+). 12) High power distance communicates from leader to soldier whereby the leader expects blind obedience and the soldier is unable to understand context for commands. This breeds confusion and resentment whereby the leaders have no respect for lowers and lowers see leaders as tyrants. class conflict then ensues. 13) Organizational patterns: i) Centralized, ii) Decentralized, iii) Distributed i) Centralized moves organization toward high power distance relations to reap the benefits of organization at larger scales. (3rd world armies)(herd with a shepard) ii) Decentralized preserves lower power distance while scaling to larger scales. (western armies)(pack) iii) Distributed attempts to remove the centralized by clipping off leaders (antifa) and in doings reduces itself to “intelligence of the mob” (only as smart as the lowest component) (herd) 14) Leftist i.e. western liberals, coming from a culture and predisposition of a lower power distance, (distrust power at the more distant levels), attempt to organize themselves in a decentralized manner but can only achieve distribution, eventually devolve into a mob due to the dissonance between their desire for authority and low power distance predilection (from being western) That is why socialism/communism may work in China without social de-cohesion (asians being high power distance) and will not work in the west. The outcome results in the distribution of a mob (herd).
Theme: Cooperation
-
Explanation of The Success of The Western Order
Jan 14, 2020, 4:27 PM by Bill Joslin (important) (riffing of post shared below) (note the multiple dimensions common in propertarian analysis) 1) Production Distribution: Whereby the square root of the population accounts for 50% of productivity (thanks Heavens Wolves for these connections). 2) Lower Power Distance = Greater Chance of Trust. Power distance index: whereby some people have a predilection to trust immediate leaders (personally known) , other are amiable to trust leaders at high distance (impersonal). 3) Lower Power Distance = Greater Agency Hierarchies that “chunk” into smaller units and delegate power (agency) into the smaller chunks, while maintaining accountability (risk) for the outcome, recursively maintain lower power distance relationships across a larger organizational structure. 4) Lower Power Distance = Easier to emulate those we trust. Lower power distance afford lower members the opportunity to emulate leaders which they have access to (my sargent, my supervisor etc) which increases their agency and calls them forward to become leaders. 5) Lower Power Distance = Greater opportunity for expression of excellence. By chunking, the square root of a smaller group, on the aggregate across many groups, produces more super performers. (a group of nine will have 3 super performers. a group of 100 will have 10 super performers – 10 groups of 9 will have 30 super performers by the standard of a single group of 90) 6) High power distance = obedience over trust. Those with higher power distance preferences, produce larger groups which delegate from one to many (one leader to 100 or 1000 men with no ranks between) 7) High Power Distance = lower agency. They do not capture the square root potential of recursive groups, which mean few super performers are available for emulation – to wit they have little to no proximity or exposure. This reduces their ability to increase agency at the same time, encourages dependence on the leaders (also known as demand for authority) 8) Western Hierarchies = produce velocity and agency. The west, via militias and presumption of individual sovereignty, has allowed low power distance individuals to organize at larger scales. in doing so has captured more benefit from the square root performance distribution. the result has been velocity. So now I can make my point: 9) Western Social Cohesion = via proximity, delegated agency, distributed accountability. This structure of chunked groups with delegated agency, bound by accountability, allowed us to emulate and respect our betters and inspires us to become them… at the same time as being able to have a higher resolution (and speed) in applying accountability. This becomes of paramount importance in maintaining cooperative class structures. Because class structures are no different from military structures Respect and reward where due, disrespect and correction where due. HOW DOES INTELLIGENCE ENTER THIS? 10) Communication breaks down across 2 Standard Deviations. A standard Deviation is 15 points. 11) Lower power distance, via “chunking” allows for IQ-capture across scales. A general (IQ 145+) communicates to a senior officer (IQ 130+) who communicates to an officer (120+) who communicates to an NCO (110+) who communicates to the soldier (IQ 85+). 12) High power distance communicates from leader to soldier whereby the leader expects blind obedience and the soldier is unable to understand context for commands. This breeds confusion and resentment whereby the leaders have no respect for lowers and lowers see leaders as tyrants. class conflict then ensues. 13) Organizational patterns: i) Centralized, ii) Decentralized, iii) Distributed i) Centralized moves organization toward high power distance relations to reap the benefits of organization at larger scales. (3rd world armies)(herd with a shepard) ii) Decentralized preserves lower power distance while scaling to larger scales. (western armies)(pack) iii) Distributed attempts to remove the centralized by clipping off leaders (antifa) and in doings reduces itself to “intelligence of the mob” (only as smart as the lowest component) (herd) 14) Leftist i.e. western liberals, coming from a culture and predisposition of a lower power distance, (distrust power at the more distant levels), attempt to organize themselves in a decentralized manner but can only achieve distribution, eventually devolve into a mob due to the dissonance between their desire for authority and low power distance predilection (from being western) That is why socialism/communism may work in China without social de-cohesion (asians being high power distance) and will not work in the west. The outcome results in the distribution of a mob (herd).
-
The Problem of The Absolute Nuclear Family (ANF)
Jan 18, 2020, 10:19 AM …(James Brittingham Says:) Under the nuclear family, individuals are asked to forgo the comfort, protection of large familiar networks, and women face the crucible of spending all day at home alone with infants, in order to pay our surplus production into a national, civilizational or global commons. Sorry but this is oppression. Mestizoes, Hassids, bourgeois Muslims, and the Amish all live much better than “legacy Americans”, and our interlopers can hardly be blamed for noticing this. …(Curt Doolittle Says:) Nuclear families in northern Europe just meant that you needed to afford a home before having children. So houses were nearby and communities swapped children to help each other all the time. So the entire community was an extended family. But your criticism is correct. Extended families, particularly three-generation families are optimum. To do that we must move capital to people not people to capital. …(Bill Joslin Says:) The break in the continuity of absolute nuclear families to their extended families results from urban planners and bankers in the 1920’s which closed the door on multifamily mortgages. The “anglo failure” of absolute nuclear families isn’t intrinsic to the ANF familial strategy but rather due to an extension of the strategy that inadvertently created it in the first place: i.e. usurping intergenerational transfer of wealth for those below the upper-middle class. The Anglo reaction to the influx in Irish and Italian migrants, both of which were accustomed to multigenerational homes, urban planners, and banks removed the possibility of a multigenerational home. Urban planners via design and zoning permits (i.e. zoning rental buildings as “single-family dwellings” and banks refusing mortgages issued that had more than a single nuclear family on the application. This prevented these migrants from pooling resources and labor to make a stake and establish themselves quickly to American life. It insured the municipalities and landlords capitalized on the new population growth. every generation would pay their rent and live separately as a result. Similarly, the church outlawing cousin marriages, a few centuries before, pertained to land and estate grabs by the church. An inheritance that would be handed to the next generation now went to the church. In both cases, the multigenerational home was dismantled in an effort to break them apart as single economic units in order to extract more wealth from them.
-
The Problem of The Absolute Nuclear Family (ANF)
Jan 18, 2020, 10:19 AM …(James Brittingham Says:) Under the nuclear family, individuals are asked to forgo the comfort, protection of large familiar networks, and women face the crucible of spending all day at home alone with infants, in order to pay our surplus production into a national, civilizational or global commons. Sorry but this is oppression. Mestizoes, Hassids, bourgeois Muslims, and the Amish all live much better than “legacy Americans”, and our interlopers can hardly be blamed for noticing this. …(Curt Doolittle Says:) Nuclear families in northern Europe just meant that you needed to afford a home before having children. So houses were nearby and communities swapped children to help each other all the time. So the entire community was an extended family. But your criticism is correct. Extended families, particularly three-generation families are optimum. To do that we must move capital to people not people to capital. …(Bill Joslin Says:) The break in the continuity of absolute nuclear families to their extended families results from urban planners and bankers in the 1920’s which closed the door on multifamily mortgages. The “anglo failure” of absolute nuclear families isn’t intrinsic to the ANF familial strategy but rather due to an extension of the strategy that inadvertently created it in the first place: i.e. usurping intergenerational transfer of wealth for those below the upper-middle class. The Anglo reaction to the influx in Irish and Italian migrants, both of which were accustomed to multigenerational homes, urban planners, and banks removed the possibility of a multigenerational home. Urban planners via design and zoning permits (i.e. zoning rental buildings as “single-family dwellings” and banks refusing mortgages issued that had more than a single nuclear family on the application. This prevented these migrants from pooling resources and labor to make a stake and establish themselves quickly to American life. It insured the municipalities and landlords capitalized on the new population growth. every generation would pay their rent and live separately as a result. Similarly, the church outlawing cousin marriages, a few centuries before, pertained to land and estate grabs by the church. An inheritance that would be handed to the next generation now went to the church. In both cases, the multigenerational home was dismantled in an effort to break them apart as single economic units in order to extract more wealth from them.
-
Our Movement
Feb 9, 2020, 7:28 AM See we all work the same way. We learn something new, we stew on it for three months, and bang, then the whole group advances in a leap. I can observe it’s happened. I can’ observe it in myself. I can’t tell when I’ve made a leap. But between leaps I can’t predict the leap.
-
Our Movement
Feb 9, 2020, 7:28 AM See we all work the same way. We learn something new, we stew on it for three months, and bang, then the whole group advances in a leap. I can observe it’s happened. I can’ observe it in myself. I can’t tell when I’ve made a leap. But between leaps I can’t predict the leap.
-
Our Movement Makes Leaders – We Don’t Appoint or Approve Them
Feb 9, 2020, 7:38 AM We don’t ask people to do anything. They do them of their own volition. John, Bill, Eli, Brandon, Martin, Alain, Pomen, and the fifty other guys I could mention – we just let the market do its job. And we even spin off people. People take P and use it for their own purposes. And that’s what we want them to do. P creates a big tent on the methodology, but it creates a lot of tribes for the application of it to different political, economic, philosophical, and spiritual frames. Sure, I have a solution for constitutional reformation to continue the western tradition and to follow the hindus and the chinese into insulation from the semitic and african civilizations so that we can each develop our civilizations according to our needs. But you can build any form of political or economic order under P and under rule of law with P – you just have to do it truthfully and reciprocally. So when we say “markets in everything” we mean EVERYTHING.
-
Our Movement Makes Leaders – We Don’t Appoint or Approve Them
Feb 9, 2020, 7:38 AM We don’t ask people to do anything. They do them of their own volition. John, Bill, Eli, Brandon, Martin, Alain, Pomen, and the fifty other guys I could mention – we just let the market do its job. And we even spin off people. People take P and use it for their own purposes. And that’s what we want them to do. P creates a big tent on the methodology, but it creates a lot of tribes for the application of it to different political, economic, philosophical, and spiritual frames. Sure, I have a solution for constitutional reformation to continue the western tradition and to follow the hindus and the chinese into insulation from the semitic and african civilizations so that we can each develop our civilizations according to our needs. But you can build any form of political or economic order under P and under rule of law with P – you just have to do it truthfully and reciprocally. So when we say “markets in everything” we mean EVERYTHING.
-
Prioritize Trust Over Performance.
Feb 9, 2020, 7:48 AM by Luke Weinhagen The prioritization of trust over performance. Both are important, but their prioritization under normal conditions should always favor trust. This same graph is what I am aiming at when I say things like “kinship capitalism”. Enough performance for the in-group capitalism to function well but never at the cost of trust and never allowing incentives for higher performance to be subsidized by the expenditure of trust.
-
Prioritize Trust Over Performance.
Feb 9, 2020, 7:48 AM by Luke Weinhagen The prioritization of trust over performance. Both are important, but their prioritization under normal conditions should always favor trust. This same graph is what I am aiming at when I say things like “kinship capitalism”. Enough performance for the in-group capitalism to function well but never at the cost of trust and never allowing incentives for higher performance to be subsidized by the expenditure of trust.