Statistically speaking, women are better with credit and safe-investing (conformity, obedience, and risk aversion), and men better with money, finance, and entrepreneurship (risk). As usual, women are better gatherers and men better hunters.
Source date (UTC): 2018-12-02 15:11:00 UTC
Another nit: Great Men “Candidates” evolve (emerge) in batches, usually over three generations of incentives (really). In other words, the market for great men exists at all times (iron law of oligarchy so to speak). World Communism was such a threat (and it’s legacy still is) that it created demand for great men to both take advantage of it, and to oppose it with Fascism. Everything else that occured within those societies was simply utilitarian. whether we get a Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot is merely a function of utility in the sphere of influences.
And as controversial as it might seem today, Hitler and Mussolini if not Stalin and Mao, will be judged by history quite differently. And it is happening already. Science evolves with the death of the advocates of theories.
As a struggle for expansion during an era of western dominance we skew one bias, and as an attempt to save the core of western civilization in a period of anticipation of decline, we skew yet another.
History is unkind to the consensus of an era. That is because consensus is merely utilitarian – rarely true.
Its not uncommon to see informed debate that the anglos should have stayed out of the wars, rather than contributing to cause and conflict.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-30 14:59:00 UTC
The means by which we achieved all of this was competition (markets). And the means by which the stoic virtues can be achieved without causing the same catastrophe that reverses the western achievement, is by both increased independence from our animal intuitions, and …
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-29 19:54:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1068231758666174466
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1068231757806342146
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
… and with them we could – in the ancient and modern if not medieval worlds – drag mankind kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the victimization by uncaring nature.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1068231757806342146
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
… and with them we could – in the ancient and modern if not medieval worlds – drag mankind kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the victimization by uncaring nature.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1068231757806342146
SIGNALS AND RELIGION
by Luke Weinhagen
Signals are like a drug. You get the dopamine hit from doing the signalling without having to expose yourself to the costs of doing the being.
Signals are passive. Being is active. Your actions are always the expression of your truth .Where your passive state does not match your active state, your passive state is a lie. It is the exposure of this lie that people are responding to.
It is the trappings of these belief systems that are, and should be, under attack first. The trapping are the passive decorations of belief, not the costly actions of belief. One can wear them and signal their belonging and righteousness. These are merely the demands the religion makes of its believers. Stripping this away is the first attack. There is no action here so there is no agency here. The response is all upset
Once the trapping are stripped away you can know what the religion actually demands of its adherents. You learn what actions one must take as a practitioner, not just one that signals belief, but puts that belief into action. Where the attack on religion meets the practitioner is where agency begins to be available. It is at this point where practitioner of and critics of can meet with cooperation, boycott or violence. Where we have the opportunity to strip away those actions that impose an external cost and use the good that remains to help guide men to transcendence.
Cooperation to remove the errors and lies and retain that which allows transcendence.
Boycott to deny the external costs of errors and lies and allow the practitioners able to do so to keep their faith with full internal accounting. (Bill’s “Ending Brother Wars”)
Violence to end the external costs of error and lies for practitioners unable to practice full accountability.
(my guess is that when we get to a point where natural law is implemented, we will see cooperation, boycott and violence line up with Christianity, Judaism and Islam)
In the exploration of religious belief, dogma and ideology I think Curt’s recent “No More Lies” post is one of his most important (even if you believe he got every single detail wrong) as it shows the effect of stripping away the trappings –
https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156800621732264
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-26 11:46:00 UTC
NAIL IN THE OBVIOUS COFFIN…. LATER MARRIAGE LEADING TO PAIRING OFF, AND INCREASING INCOME DIFFERENCES
The best results on assortative mating and inequality I have seen
by Tyler Cowen
This paper studies the evolution of assortative mating in the permanent wage (the individual-specific component of wage) in the U.S., its role in the increase in family wage inequality, and the factors behind this evolution. I first document a substantial trend in assortative mating, as measured by the permanent wage correlation of couples, from 0.3 for families formed in the late 1960s to 0.52 for families formed in the late 1980s.
I show that this trend accounts for more than one-third of the increase in family wage inequality across these cohorts of families. I then argue that the increase in marriage age across these cohorts contributed to the assortative mating and thus to the rising inequality.
Individuals face a large degree of uncertainty about their permanent wages early in their careers. If they marry early, as most individuals in the late 1960s did, this uncertainty leads to weak marital sorting along permanent wage. But when marriage is delayed, as in the late 1980s, the sorting becomes stronger due to the quick resolution of this uncertainty with work experience.
After providing reduced-form evidence on the impact of marriage age, I build and estimate a marriage model with wage uncertainty and show that the increase in marriage age can explain almost 80% of the increase in assortative mating.
https://sites.google.com/site/alparslantuncay2018/research
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-22 18:06:00 UTC
LAW CHANGES HUMAN BEHAVIOUR FIRST. SOCIAL SHAMING SECOND, REWARD THIRD.
by Bill Joslin
Law changes human behaviour first. Social shaming second, reward third.
Subsumed in a world of business people who manage by leaning on the crutch of “incentives”(bonuses, commissions etc) I’m often aghast at how blind they are to the strength of disincentives in average workers.
People, when under stress, will gladly take on opportunity costs to avoid pain (lose that bonus to avoid the continual abuse of a shitty client).
We’re wired to avoid costs and mitigate risk almost to the point of death. When disincentives are suppressed (when we’re trained to behave properly), incentives come into play.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-22 13:05:00 UTC
Krugman, Delong, Stiglitz, et al. “Saltwater” school for the maximization of consumption, and the prohibition on the construction of intergenerational commons, including OUR INSTITUTIONS, CULTURE, CIVILIZATION, AND GENES.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-20 19:20:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064961790520565767
Reply addressees: @MartialSociety
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064931514255728640
IN REPLY TO:
@MartialSociety
@curtdoolittle Which economists? Taleb compared economist to alchemist & astrologist, but he named names.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064931514255728640
WHERE DID ECONOMICS GO WRONG?
As far as I know, economics ‘went wrong’ when “the republican income statement no longer propagated to the monarchical balance sheet.” In other words, when we failed to account for ALL capital changes, including territorial, genetic, cultural, normative, knowledge, and institutional, and therefore treated economics as a means of pseudo-scientific cherry-picking of measurements, under the pretense that such capital was being mobilized rather than consumed (or simply lost or destroyed).
The postwar era, by the pseudoscientific taboo against the darwinian revolution and the necessity of continuing 3500 years of environmental eugenics, and 1600 years of manorial eugenics, and 800 years of juridical eugenics, converted the discipline into the means by which to conduct war against civilization: the incremental domestication of animal man into equilibrium with his productive technologies, and his means of calculating a survivable future with them: sovereignty, reciprocity, law (tort), markets in everything, property, money, prices.
Economics is either a measure of cooperation, and therefore, reciprocity, and therefore political economy, and as such Law (tort – dispute resolution), Legislation (commons production and defense), and regulation (prior restraint by the insurer of last resort), and attendant standards of measurement, or it is merely an innumerate pseudoscience to justify the consumption of accumulated capital in pursuit of slow reversal of eugenic evolution, regression to the ancient mean, and the source of the justification for the consequente devolution of civilization and man.
Efficiency is a rather ridiculous pursuit unbound by justification for less visible capital destruction , just as is legislation is a pursuit unbound by rules of contract.
The Market Failure hypothesis is rather ridiculous since if the market produces proceeds sufficient to subsidize goods services and information, and distorting that market harmful to it.
And a hundred other nonsense-schemes we use to obscure the reversal of eugenic evolution, or the returns on conquest and sale of continents, or the conversion of intergenerational lending to temporal redistribution and the price of that risk, or the transition from physical money to digital record of credit and debt, and the end of necessity or value of distribution of liquidity through the financial system, and the inability to reconstruct that capital without such chaos we dare not speak of it.
Science is not kind. We have yet to have the necessary revolution in economics by its reunification with the law. As far as I know there is only one social science – the law (tort), legislation (contracts for the commons) and regulation (insurance) and the rest is measurement of its consequence.
This was the difference between the austrian (rule of law), chicago (rule of law insured) and saltwater (return to arbitrary rule of man) schools of economics. Today, post 2008, it is very difficult to see much more than “I dunno what to do know” from the profession, except to permute as do the physicists on dark matter, because we lack the instrumentation necessary to obtain the information sufficient to correct our theories, and therefore limited to failure (collapse) and therefore desperate incentive to correct these errors, rather than falsify the 20th century social pseudosciences in economics as we are doing in psychology and sociology, with cognitive sciences and genetics.
The Worm Turns, and as Hayek warned but could not himself answer: the 20th will be remembered as an era of the restoration of mysticism – which we more correctly state as platonism, idealism, sophism, innumeracy, and pseudoscience.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-19 20:43:00 UTC
WHY DOES ANYONE DO WHAT THEY DO?
Why does anyone do what they do? Incentives. You can encourage someone to seize incentives they did not previously know of, but you cannot convince people NOT to seize opportunities and incentives that they DO know of. That’s why we invented disapproval, shaming, punishing, norms, laws, traditions and rules uncountable.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-19 09:17:00 UTC
Hmmm….. Let’s Go Through This Question
WHEREAS
The necessity of Reciprocity exists – because it creates and preserves the incentive to cooperate, and by cooperating produce a division of knowledge and labor, and the disproportionate returns from it.
Demand for reciprocity exists in competition with demand for preservation of parasitism and predation.
By the use of organized violence to produce traditions, norms, and laws we incrementally suppress parasitism and predation, increasing demand for reciprocity, and therefore the markets, and the returns on cooperation.
These traditions, norms, and laws consists of demands (duties) to both personally avoid parasitism and predation and personally police parasitism and predation.
The origin of laws is the prevention of retaliation cycles (feuds), and standardization of restitution and punishments, between men who policed their kin, and instead form a corporation that polices all, including retaliation cycles, thereby preventing degradation of the returns on cooperation through degradation of cooperation, through degradation of trust, because of increase in risk.
ERGO:
0) We always have the choice of predation, parasitism, cooperation, non-cooperation, and boycott. ie: Man is amoral choosing immoral (predation, parasitism), amoral (irrelevant), and moral (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality) as is in his interests.
1) Predation is optimum in the short term, parasitism in the medium term, and cooperation in the long term, but all tend toward equilibration as we run out of opportunities for predation, parasitism, and cooperation, and seek alternative means of survival, subsistence, prosperity.
2) Cooperation produces outsized returns as long as it is not offset by parasitism and predation.
3) Reciprocity preserves the incentive to cooperate and as a consequence, the returns of cooperation.
4) We organize the suppression of parasitism and predation (and in some cases even boycott) by the concentration of violence to do so.
5) We finance this suppression by suppression of local ‘rents’ and increasing centralization of rents. Thus giving rise to the military police and judiciary.
6) To decrease risk, transaction costs, and increase the velocity of cooperation and the returns from it, we further suppress by prior restraint, creating the insurer of last resort,: from the demand for weights and measures, and the production and defense of commons we form governments from headmen, chieftains, kings (martial class), oligarchies (middle class), and democracies (underclass), as well as churches (education) to train people into doing so.
7) But without the courts to function as a market for reciprocity with which to defend us from those within the insurer of last resort, these centralizations create a monopoly and therefore maximize the extraction of rents and maximize the defensibility of the sustainability of those rents, and do so by searching for ‘customers’ that facilitate the extraction of rents.
8) Meaning that the only solutions are restoration of markets inside that monopoly we call the insurer of last resort. As such while startup costs are often best paid by the insurer of last resort, once survivable such must be privatized, OR subject to juridical competition under universal standing.
9) The remaining question being the decision on the production of commons: which appears, aesthetically to be optimally served by the a monarchy; commercially by an oligarchy, familially by democracy, and as an insurer of last resort, a church (the outliers). As such the principle difference is organizing these markets and allocating returns on cooperation (those commissions on cooperation we call taxes) to the hierarchy so that each class may engage in trade with others for the production of desirable commons.
AS SUCH
1 – There exists a natural law (necessity), and that is non-imposition (reciprocity, sovereignty). We do not have a choice in this. It is the product of physical universe, and the necessity of a species capable of the pursuit of self interest as well as cooperation in that self interest.
2 – That necessity of natural law can be expressed positively (usefully) as a collection of rights of appeal to a court (insurer) of natural law (reciprocity, sovereignty).
3 – In that sense, we can attempt to violate natural law, or we can attempt to construct natural rights (defenses of reciprocity). While courts of the common (natural) law of tort attempt to construct natural rights under rule of law, the state attempts (constantly) to violate that natural law by the construction of legislation that violates the natural law of reciprocity.
4 – Natural rights do not exist, but instead, natural rights (specific insurances of sovereignty) are something we can seek to create through legislation (contract), that is then enforced by the courts (insurer).
5 – Natural Rights are not something that exists without our creation of them under the natural law of non-imposition, reciprocity, sovereignty. The are merely something we desire to produce within the natural law of reciprocity, as specific guarantees of those instances of property: life, liberty, property, and interests in the multitude of physical, normative, traditional, and institutional commons.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-19 09:16:00 UTC