Theme: Deception

  • Hmm… In the sense you mean ‘popular’ then that’s true. If you mean uneffected,

    Hmm… In the sense you mean ‘popular’ then that’s true. If you mean uneffected, that’s likely false. Few of us are aware that most of our thoughts are the product of “scribblers”. Our minds have been formed by the effects of people who produce ideas that are, in their original form, inaccessible. We already see the impact of the work. We even have PhD candidates using it and writing theses with it. And we are aware that we only interact with a minority of people, while there are ‘Lurkers’ who use it every day.

    Reply addressees: @Stepstone84


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-12 08:07:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811673717853900801

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811657288530427963

  • Will, Moral ambitions in the absence of evidence are often the worst crimes that

    Will,
    Moral ambitions in the absence of evidence are often the worst crimes that mankind commits. It’s certainly true of the 100M dead due to leftism and communism over the past era.

    1) If the poor people who are poor because they lack the neoteny, self regulation, intelligence, resulting in unfavorable family structure, traditions, norms, and values, move into communities with better behaved and more able people, the better people will flee. They always have in every civilization and they always will because it’s rational self interest.

    2) Western civ is the highest investment polity (highest psychological and emotional cost) in prosocial norms the world has ever constructed, and association with those incapable of equal prosocial norms only raises the costs and lowers the outcome of less evolved and less developed peoples, and as such those capable of higher investment parenting in suppression of impulsivity, extension of time preference (delay of gratification), and investment in the capacity for individual responsibility will flee those who raise the cost of that investment.

    2) The history of ‘white flight’ (jewish flight, now asian flight), is well documented. You can’t change it. It’ll never change. It’s rational self interest.

    3) Additionally, the history of “Proximity creates hostility” is well documented. It’s one thing if there is no more than 1SD of variation among an ethnic group, but if an ethnic group exceeds 1SD on the average then the lower SD group will always suffer lower status, lower achievement, lower performance, and lower standards of living.

    4) Additionally, destruction of trust and destruction of civil institutions resulting in “bowling alone” is well documented.

    5) When incompatible groups are force into competition resulting in inequality of outcomes the superior group will seek institutional defense against the costs of the inferior group, and the inferior group will seek institutional offense against the inequality caused by their proximity to the superior group.

    6) In case you haven’t been scientifically literate since 1999, the plasticity of humans, meaning the nature nurture debate has been settled, it’s 70-80% nature and 20-30% idiosyncratic experience (randomness). Even if we try, all statistically improvements disappear by adulthood. IQ was settled before 2000. Sex differences were settled by 2012. Race differences were settled by 2018. These are immutable differences in neotenic, sexual, and regional development as mankind spread across the world.

    These differences are not only correlative but causally explained behaviors obvious to every single person who has studied any depth of genetics, cognitive science, behavioral economics, political economy, and those few of us who work in comparative group evolutionary strategies.

    All you are doing will, is confirming wishful cognitive biases that are easily explained, just as pseudoscientists (the marxist sequence) and theologians (the abrahamic sequence) and the many shaman have done for millennia.

    What you don’t understand is that by lying intentionally or by indirectly lying because of a failure of due diligence, and in support of your own cognitive bias combined with false feedback provided by attention seeking, is that you are justifying the end of participatory government, and in particular the participation of women and the underclasses by demonstrating you are willing to profit from the misleading of victims of your deception

    The solution is to admit that copying the Russians during the civil rights era, destroyed the black family, ended the developing black middle and upper middle classes, black institutions, and most importantly the emergent black intellectual class.

    The only solution is self determination, wherein people choose who they want to live with and who they do not. In other words, separation: the federation of many small nation states of europe (at least prior to the french attempt at dominating europe), is the optimum political order.

    Oddly the europeans tried (and are failing) at creating an america of europe at the same time the centralization of america in response to the civil war is being overthrown by trying to conflate continental economic and strategic needs for uniformity, with the regional and local needs for social variation.

    What Im telling you is that you’re just making things worse. You’re not alone. The academy and the bureaucracy who are equally ignorant and inexperience in the organization, management, and governance of people of any scale other than the classroom or department, are doing the same.

    And it’s ending.

    And within a decade it will end tragically.

    And it will be all your (collective) fault.

    “May God save us from well meaning fools.”

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @whstancil


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 20:12:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811493904425832448

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811483707233984897

  • Q: “Have you listened to a speech by, say, Justin Trudeau? Subversion, selfishne

    –Q: “Have you listened to a speech by, say, Justin Trudeau? Subversion, selfishness, irresponsibility and deception describe him perfectly.”–

    Yes of course. He’s cognitively feminine. And everything he says is some sort of lie.
    If you take a cursory look at the evolution ofโ€ฆ https://t.co/yK4i1F2LHs


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 17:46:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811457091963417067

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811424783478977012

  • Again, a confession as an accusation using the female method of projection. You’

    Again, a confession as an accusation using the female method of projection. You’re stereotypical.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 14:24:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811406328549814345

    Reply addressees: @spaceangelvoice

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811405244837888275

  • If you study my work, at least my work on sex differences in cognition, valuatio

    If you study my work, at least my work on sex differences in cognition, valuation, and expression, eventually you’ll see the subversion, selfishness, irresponsibility, and deception of the feminine whenever you read or hear the words of women.
    The question is, can women be made self aware of their behavior despite it’s instinctual origin, such that women can achieve sufficient rational responsibility to participate in politics, government, and law?
    Because at present the predictions of the anti-suffrage population is bearing out almost exactly as they stated.
    You see, I want to fix problems not just complain about them. And I think maybe this is possible.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 14:12:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811403224563200000

  • Rather fascinating if amateurish take, without any argument that addresses my wo

    Rather fascinating if amateurish take, without any argument that addresses my work (or my organization’s work or life’s achievements.)
    Instead, under the common feminine assumption your opinion or approval has any value or merit, you use the female pretense of knowledge, pretense of authority, combined with ad hominem undermining by casting unsupported assertions consisting of nothing but vapid opinions, made worse by the rather obvious demonstration that you cannot distinguish between true / false independent of you, and desirable / undesirable by you. And this is on top of a history of incompetency in analysis of the incentives and cognitive differences of both sexes.
    I mean, for all your railing against the masculine mind, you’re a canonical example of the failures of the psychotic feminine despite it’s organization into relatively cogent prose.
    So either you can explain all behavior of either sex as pursuit of rational incentives in the face of ignorance of consequences or you cannot. If you cannot do that then you cannot also distinguish truth from preferential bias in justification of selfish incentives.
    From my perspective you were an interesting person with potential given the passion of your arguments and the detail in your observations. But through cumulative experience it at least appears you cannot disentangle your rage, bias, and selfishness sufficiently to produce understanding rather than complaint.
    To expand our organization and it’s influence, I (we) seek out talent that can be improved. It’s sifting through haystacks for rare needles. But once in a while it does bear fruit. Unfortunately, not in this case.
    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @spaceangelvoice @a7959705360789


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-11 13:59:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811399796093009920

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811381883642519703

  • “Social pressure to avoid sharing evidence against a particular claim undermines

    –“Social pressure to avoid sharing evidence against a particular claim undermines the confidence we can place in that claim, because it makes more likely the possibility that the (first-order) evidence that does make its way to us is a lopsided subset of the total. This has the perhaps tragic implication that we can typically be less confident of morally and politically laden issues than we can about โ€œdryโ€ subjects like chemistry or cell biology.”-Hrishikesh Joshi


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-10 20:42:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811139023148036096

  • Thank you. Appreciated. ๐Ÿ˜‰ I wish we could delete lame replies like we could on

    Thank you. Appreciated. ๐Ÿ˜‰
    I wish we could delete lame replies like we could on facebook. Unfortunately nitwits poison the discourse.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-10 20:16:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811132470940627437

    Reply addressees: @ChrisWenzel2 @hbd_orbiter

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811130930565673095

  • @whatifalthist and followers: I follow you (RL) but not so much comments directe

    @whatifalthist and followers:

    I follow you (RL) but not so much comments directed at you. I had a chance to browse through a wide range of comments here and YT and given we’re pretty close friends, I’m kind of set off by some of the criticisms – not of your work (which is pretty hard to criticize), but instead of you personally.

    Why the heck to people think you’re autistic or a nerd? Is it just a vast difference in your maturity for your age, while you still maintain the humor of your youth? (I suspect it’s something like that) Intellectuals aren’t that nerdy. You certainly aren’t. You’re exceptionally graceful in social conditions. Well mannered. A great conversationalist and good leader even if you’d prefer to preserve your think time rather than take responsibility for herding cats. That doesn’t mean you’re going to find stimulation in ‘normie’ interests. I mean, the swords thing? How many of us went through that phase but didn’t have the money to buy them? I don’t know what else could stick out.

    And what is this about being autistic? Well, you know, as someone very low on the aspergers spectrum myself, autism is just the extreme male systematizing brain. You’re very male brained in that sense. Are they confusing your fascination for accumulating wisdom with autism? You don’t demonstrate any of the autistic traits of lack of capacity for empathic understanding – just the opposite.

    Is it because you’re so concerned for the men of your generation (because you know what happens when they reach critical mass) that they think you’re projecting?

    And what is it with these people claiming your an incel? WTH? I guess you don’t talk about the women you’re dating or courting? And I can attest to the hotness of at least the one I met and the few others I know of. So where is this nonsense coming from?

    Is it a class thing? You probably consider yourself middle or upper middle class but you are from a background of academic parenting.

    I mean, exceptional people are often idiosyncratic or eccentric, (I’m certainly eccentric) and maybe you have a little of that, but otherwise you’re just normal from my perspective other than you’re extremely intelligent, studied, mature, wise, and thoughtful for your age.

    Is it the dissonance between your age, your generation, your sense of humor, and what you study and talk about? (Again, I think that might be it).

    I’m probably asking these questions rhetorically, because they’re really directed at your followers.

    How can you produce that much content and do so with so much personal openness, and yet some people understand you so poorly? Is it something as foolish as self image protection by those who can’t understand your work?

    Someone please explain this to me?

    Because the guy I know is just a very smart normie who has some long tail playfulness of youth at one and and wisdom of scholars three (four?) times his age on the other.

    Thanks


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-10 18:14:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811101681456926721

  • Putin miscalculated because he is so afraid of technology that he only accepts p

    Putin miscalculated because he is so afraid of technology that he only accepts paper and verbal reports. He foolishily believed what he was being told byhis people – which is evidence of the failure of despotism. Are his actions otherwise rational? Of course. Given he believed the nonsense from his generals, his intelligence service, and his miltary suppliers. Given our previous reactions to his expansionary militarism in the caucuses. Given our reaction to his taking of donbas and crimea. Given the election of Biden not trump. He made a calculation based on bad information. And now he’s stuck. Because he’s going to be murdered if he loses power. The US strategy has been consistent, which is to wear down russia’s military, economy, and political legitimacy – which is taking far longer than we’d hoped or expected, but it’s working. So as long as the Ukrainian’s are willing to fight, russia will continue to bleed out until they must come to the table. And hopefully, if russia falls far enough we can integrate them rather than have them fall to china and minorities in the east, and islam from the center and south.
    I’m not ‘special’. I’m just someone sympathetic to the extreme right wing, and in return some of them tend to listen to. As far as I know all geostrategic thinkers (most of whom I know) understand this.
    The variable isn’t russia. The variable isn’t europe. Europe is doing what trump wanted them to. The variable is the potential evolution int he USA which could turn the whole world into chaos. Or the triggering of war with china which would mean we might not pay enough attention to russia over ukraine and the baltics.

    Reply addressees: @hbd_orbiter


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-10 17:47:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811095009875099649

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1811092685907808636