https://ncase.me/trust/Updated Sep 27, 2019, 10:41 PM
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 22:41:00 UTC
Theme: Cooperation
-
Because europeans are too high trust and too little clannish to defend ourselves
Because europeans are too high trust and too little clannish to defend ourselves from invasion by marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism, and fundamentalist judaism and islam – why? Because we let women vote.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-26 23:42:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177367918646112256
Reply addressees: @roytapel @JohnMarkSays
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177367443674583041
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable ā we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177367443674583041
-
“Can you relate in-group vs out-group to morality = reciprocity ?”—Scott Clare
—“Can you relate in-group vs out-group to morality = reciprocity ?”—Scott Claremont
Morality = Rules of cooperation
INGROUP VS OUTGROUP
1. Ingroup,
2. outgroup
… a. outgroup trade,… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=472302760033286&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-25 14:21:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176864215749091336
-
“Can you relate in-group vs out-group to morality = reciprocity ?”—Scott Clare
—“Can you relate in-group vs out-group to morality = reciprocity ?”—Scott Claremont
Morality = Rules of cooperation
INGROUP VS OUTGROUP
1. Ingroup,
2. outgroup
… a. outgroup trade,
… b. outgroup boycott,
… c. outgroup competitor,
… d. outgroup parasite
… e. outgroup predator
Ingroup by definition = cooperation (moral)
Ingroup always requires reciprocity.
Ingroup oten requires investment (risk)
Ingroup often requires insurance
Ingroup may require subsidy.
Outgroup by definition only requires utility.
Outgroup may or may not require reciprocity
Outgroup does not require investment (risk)
Outgroup does not demand insurance
Outgroup does not require subsidy.
Outgroup non-cooperation is disutilitarian
Outgroup non-cooperation does not require reciprocity
Outgroup non-cooperation does not require investment
Outgroup non-cooperation does not require insurance
Outgroup non-cooperation does not require subsidy
Outgroup enemy is harmful
Outgroup enemy requires irreciprocity
Outgroup enemy requires costs to impose costs
Outgroup enemy requires destruction of their insurance
Outgroup enemy requires destruction of their subsidies
Lesson: you can’t use one rule for scale.
Humans are monkeys that want to imitate or follow a single pre-cognitive intuitions rather than think (remember or reason).
But spectra require disambiguation and thought.
There are no points(ideal types) only lines (spectra). š
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-25 10:20:00 UTC
-
RT @MartianHoplite: The Ideal: a balanced tradeoff btw individualism & collectiv
RT @MartianHoplite: The Ideal: a balanced tradeoff btw individualism & collectivism.
Libertarianism: always individualism, esp when bad, nā¦
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-23 01:03:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1175938738196832256
-
That thing we call kin selection scales across disciplines, and only because we
That thing we call kin selection scales across disciplines, and only because we artificially isolate disciplines so that each discipline can maintain it’s grammar (system of paradigms and terms – meaning measurements). It’s this systemic problem I spend time solving with P.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-23 00:50:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1175935519651504128
Reply addressees: @User1233213
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1175935215824322561
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@User1233213 This is a problem that arises from disciplinary specialization rather than mastery of multiple fields – and is another example of why I teach the Grammars, and use Economics (demonstrated behavior at scale) where others do not. Groups demonstrate different criteria for selection.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1175935215824322561
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@User1233213 This is a problem that arises from disciplinary specialization rather than mastery of multiple fields – and is another example of why I teach the Grammars, and use Economics (demonstrated behavior at scale) where others do not. Groups demonstrate different criteria for selection.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1175935215824322561
-
For example Jayman will disagree group selection but he limits the term to its o
For example Jayman will disagree group selection but he limits the term to its origins, rather than expanding it to cover increasing means of selection based upon circumstantial demand – the most obvious being masculine traits in stress, and less so in plenty.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-23 00:47:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1175934766559965185
Reply addressees: @User1233213
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1175934427270209537
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@User1233213 This is a test of verbalisms. Do we use one term for kin and extrapolate from there, or do we use a series beginning with kin selection, or do we take the terms from behavioral economics, and talk in the term of discounts. There are multiple term-category conflicts in this space.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1175934427270209537
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@User1233213 This is a test of verbalisms. Do we use one term for kin and extrapolate from there, or do we use a series beginning with kin selection, or do we take the terms from behavioral economics, and talk in the term of discounts. There are multiple term-category conflicts in this space.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1175934427270209537
-
Kin selection is demonstrated in every single stage of social order from the dro
Kin selection is demonstrated in every single stage of social order from the drowning test, friend selection, to neighborhood selection, to workplace, to voting patterns, to buying and art patterns. Clannishness varies as does trust by race and subrace. WTF are you talking about?
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-23 00:43:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1175933781062115328
Reply addressees: @User1233213
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1175675476431519745
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable ā we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1175675476431519745
-
You and your fellow ‘liberals’ are just another priesthood selling another false
You and your fellow ‘liberals’ are just another priesthood selling another false promise, counter to laws of nature, and the natural law of human cooperation.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-19 17:00:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174730053827080193
Reply addressees: @willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174729759097421824
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke ANd you are doing everything possible to restore monopoly and dysgenics that has destroyed every great civilization of the ancient world. And is destroying european – as fast as the roman empire – in just seventy years.
So no. We aren’t going to let that happen.Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174729759097421824
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@willwilkinson @nytopinion @BetoORourke ANd you are doing everything possible to restore monopoly and dysgenics that has destroyed every great civilization of the ancient world. And is destroying european – as fast as the roman empire – in just seventy years.
So no. We aren’t going to let that happen.Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174729759097421824
-
Additionally, conservatives find disgust (impurity) in mind, word, and deed into
Additionally, conservatives find disgust (impurity) in mind, word, and deed intolerable, and this is what unites us against the left: they’re disgusting. Why? They ruin the commons, including the genetic.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-18 23:35:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174467118341001221
Reply addressees: @UDepravity @gurugeorgey @Biorealism @charliekirk11 @TuckerCarlson @thespandrell @Steve_Sailer
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174466649598103552
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@UDepravity @gurugeorgey @Biorealism @charliekirk11 @TuckerCarlson @thespandrell @Steve_Sailer The problem is that the female mind (left, consumption), ascendent male mind (libertarian, production), and established male mind (conservative, conservation) differ in their moral instincts. Proportionality and equality for the female and Reciprocity and hierarchy for the male.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174466649598103552
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@UDepravity @gurugeorgey @Biorealism @charliekirk11 @TuckerCarlson @thespandrell @Steve_Sailer The problem is that the female mind (left, consumption), ascendent male mind (libertarian, production), and established male mind (conservative, conservation) differ in their moral instincts. Proportionality and equality for the female and Reciprocity and hierarchy for the male.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174466649598103552