Theme: Deception

It’s unfortunate you don’t have long form (the checkmark) so this is more difficult than it should be.

While it appears your both intellectualy capable and intellectually honest enough to have this conversation I don’t think you have the requisite knowledge to either understand what I’m saying or apply it. But I’ll try again.

All civilizations develop a group evolutoinary strategy.
There are only three means of coercion, so only three forms of informal to formal institutions.
The order in which civilizations develop these institutions produces a path dependence under which the first institution is dominant, second less so, and third weakest or fails.
The middle east originated for presently obvious reasons religion as the first formal institution – not the least of which was the organization of irrigation prior to the conflict over irrigation leading to the rise of martial elites. While the strong states developed the state and military as the second institution, jews, of the roman era reached back for jewish scriptural authority law (again for reasons we know of), used law as the second institution and have been consistently weak at durable state formation as the third institution.
The Chinese developed state, “reasonable” philosophy instead of law, and weak ‘natural’ religion. The Hindus devleoped the most interesting monopoly a philosophical religion for each caste, and failed at both state and law. The europeans on the steppe developed the only institution possible for horse, bronze, wheel cattle raiders:
that of pirates: the institution of natural contractual law prohibiting authority, producing sovereignty, reciprocity, and democracy – at least for the warrior class. And for the same reasons developed trifunctionalism or the competition between military, wisdom(priestly), and legal (tradition) elites. The most visible remnant of their conquest of europe that we have remaining was Sparta. And athens was the result of wealth from trade: navies are a better investment than armies, becuase in tiems of peace they produce revenue.
So instead of master slave dichotomy, the framing of our civilizational differences is only in that european aristocratic, loyal, recirprocal, dyamic empirical law, and empirical prohibiton on authority demanding decidability by truth before agreement: a masculine strategy of non conflict vs the jewish middle and lower classes of devoted, asymmetrical, legal, and supernatural, with a fixed divine authoritarian law reqiring interpretation requring pilpul, justification, and agreement independent of truth: a feminine strategy of non conflict.
So why did europeans produce nearly all meaningful innovation in history and advance the fastest in the bronze, iron, and steel ages? All our incentives drive for truth first and agreement second. Why did jewish culture invent nothing at all despite being the most literate people of all? The opposite reason.
Conversely, what did jewish people do when finally given access to integration into the west in the middle 1800s? (a) partially contribute to certain sciences constructively (b) but demonstrate their group evolutionary strategy by creating pseudosciences based upon what was agreeable rather than true in every single behavioral science.
So, the evidence (and MacDonald is the scholar who traces the evolution of each of these movements),
And yes, given that sex differences in cognition are overlapping in the genders, and given that rent seeking and avoiding the market are desirable for some, there are europeans who are vunlerable to the seduction of agreement/disagreement, approval/disapproval, over true/false, reciprocal/irreciprocal. In other words the feminine intuition is naturally immoral at any scale where anonymity of responsibility and accountability is possible, and as such there are a large percentage of women and a smaller percentage of men who are easily ‘baited into hazard’ by the false promise of violation of physical, behavioral, evolutionary, and logical laws of the universe. So we should and do observe these people engaging in parasitic behaviors.
Now you may not be ware of computational linguistics, group differences in metaphysical presumptions, and the variation that is necessary to justify those presumptions as they increasingly diverge from the laws of nature. You may not be aware that the universe only operates on a single rule of evolutionary computatoin by continuous recursive disambiguation of disorder(entropy) into order (mass). And you may not also grasp that universal gramar likewise consists of continuous recursive disambiguation, Or that all such grammatical constructs consist of nouns(referents) and verbs(operations) and agreements, (true false). So that it is possible to organize langauge into at least an an ordinal if not cardinal equivalent of mathematics, and thereby determine the variation from the laws of the universe at every scale of emergent operations. And you very likely do not grasp that in doing so we can sample as few as one hundred words and determine your personality trait, rough estimate of intelligence, and cultural and religous background. And you certainly don’t know that while we have known for centuries that men and women thought spoke and argued differently, it’s my work that has documented the sex differences in lying and explained them from the biocehmistry of the organization of the neocortex in particular by migration into the predator-prey hemispheres, and longitudinal or lateral organization, that results in sex differences in cognition.
Now I took enough time to write this for you, as a starting point. THe reason I did so is to produce a frame of reference that states that this isn’t some sophomoric work of justificationary nonsense but a multi-decade research program in which I have worked to produce a formal logic of decidability, and as such a formal logic of law, so that it is possible to at least falsify and if necessary outlaw the vast corpus of human methods of lying and denying wether by feminine empathic and undermining means or masculine systemic and logical means.
Cheers

It’s unfortunate you don’t have long form (the checkmark) so this is more difficult than it should be.

While it appears your both intellectualy capable and intellectually honest enough to have this conversation I don’t think you have the requisite knowledge to either understand what I’m saying or apply it. But I’ll try again.

All civilizations develop a group evolutoinary strategy.
There are only three means of coercion, so only three forms of informal to formal institutions.
The order in which civilizations develop these institutions produces a path dependence under which the first institution is dominant, second less so, and third weakest or fails.
The middle east originated for presently obvious reasons religion as the first formal institution – not the least of which was the organization of irrigation prior to the conflict over irrigation leading to the rise of martial elites. While the strong states developed the state and military as the second institution, jews, of the roman era reached back for jewish scriptural authority law (again for reasons we know of), used law as the second institution and have been consistently weak at durable state formation as the third institution.
The Chinese developed state, “reasonable” philosophy instead of law, and weak ‘natural’ religion. The Hindus devleoped the most interesting monopoly a philosophical religion for each caste, and failed at both state and law. The europeans on the steppe developed the only institution possible for horse, bronze, wheel cattle raiders:
that of pirates: the institution of natural contractual law prohibiting authority, producing sovereignty, reciprocity, and democracy – at least for the warrior class. And for the same reasons developed trifunctionalism or the competition between military, wisdom(priestly), and legal (tradition) elites. The most visible remnant of their conquest of europe that we have remaining was Sparta. And athens was the result of wealth from trade: navies are a better investment than armies, becuase in tiems of peace they produce revenue.
So instead of master slave dichotomy, the framing of our civilizational differences is only in that european aristocratic, loyal, recirprocal, dyamic empirical law, and empirical prohibiton on authority demanding decidability by truth before agreement: a masculine strategy of non conflict vs the jewish middle and lower classes of devoted, asymmetrical, legal, and supernatural, with a fixed divine authoritarian law reqiring interpretation requring pilpul, justification, and agreement independent of truth: a feminine strategy of non conflict.
So why did europeans produce nearly all meaningful innovation in history and advance the fastest in the bronze, iron, and steel ages? All our incentives drive for truth first and agreement second. Why did jewish culture invent nothing at all despite being the most literate people of all? The opposite reason.
Conversely, what did jewish people do when finally given access to integration into the west in the middle 1800s? (a) partially contribute to certain sciences constructively (b) but demonstrate their group evolutionary strategy by creating pseudosciences based upon what was agreeable rather than true in every single behavioral science.
So, the evidence (and MacDonald is the scholar who traces the evolution of each of these movements),
And yes, given that sex differences in cognition are overlapping in the genders, and given that rent seeking and avoiding the market are desirable for some, there are europeans who are vunlerable to the seduction of agreement/disagreement, approval/disapproval, over true/false, reciprocal/irreciprocal. In other words the feminine intuition is naturally immoral at any scale where anonymity of responsibility and accountability is possible, and as such there are a large percentage of women and a smaller percentage of men who are easily ‘baited into hazard’ by the false promise of violation of physical, behavioral, evolutionary, and logical laws of the universe. So we should and do observe these people engaging in parasitic behaviors.
Now you may not be ware of computational linguistics, group differences in metaphysical presumptions, and the variation that is necessary to justify those presumptions as they increasingly diverge from the laws of nature. You may not be aware that the universe only operates on a single rule of evolutionary computatoin by continuous recursive disambiguation of disorder(entropy) into order (mass). And you may not also grasp that universal gramar likewise consists of continuous recursive disambiguation, Or that all such grammatical constructs consist of nouns(referents) and verbs(operations) and agreements, (true false). So that it is possible to organize langauge into at least an an ordinal if not cardinal equivalent of mathematics, and thereby determine the variation from the laws of the universe at every scale of emergent operations. And you very likely do not grasp that in doing so we can sample as few as one hundred words and determine your personality trait, rough estimate of intelligence, and cultural and religous background. And you certainly don’t know that while we have known for centuries that men and women thought spoke and argued differently, it’s my work that has documented the sex differences in lying and explained them from the biocehmistry of the organization of the neocortex in particular by migration into the predator-prey hemispheres, and longitudinal or lateral organization, that results in sex differences in cognition.
Now I took enough time to write this for you, as a starting point. THe reason I did so is to produce a frame of reference that states that this isn’t some sophomoric work of justificationary nonsense but a multi-decade research program in which I have worked to produce a formal logic of decidability, and as such a formal logic of law, so that it is possible to at least falsify and if necessary outlaw the vast corpus of human methods of lying and denying wether by feminine empathic and undermining means or masculine systemic and logical means.
Cheers

Reply addressees: @AmKsheOref @Vessel_of_Glass