—“Everyone is born with X amount of potential (genetic, cultural, material and technological capital). If they do nothing or pursue a hedonic lifestyle, that potential will be consumed and then one dies. Most people barely sustain it, maybe increase it marginally. Exceptional people increase it exponentially, and that’s why we have pareto distributions of success. The people that take advantage of the most opportunities and put their potential/capital to work gain the most potential/capital in return. Simple.”— @Yannis Kontinopoulo ( h/t: Simon Ström )
Theme: Incentives
-
THE ROLE OF EMOTIONS Emotions are information. They inform us as to past, presen
THE ROLE OF EMOTIONS
Emotions are information. They inform us as to past, present, and future changes in state of capital (resources) environmental, physical, mental, social, and emotional.
Our struggle in transcending from animal to human is knowing when that information is true, and when it is false for the circumstances. Since evolution seized the opportunity to surrender that choice to cognition, when possible.
For those that have not transcended the animal, emotions remain their primary source of information. For those that have transcended the animal, our remaining emotions provide failover for when reason and calculation fail. It’s so that under temporal and resource pressure our decision making can ‘degrade’ gracefully.
Unfortunately for women, raising infants, toddlers, children, and each other is for all intents and purposes irrational given the time between investment(action) and return (consequence). Just as for men, the value of those emotions and the time to integrate and react to them was a death sentence, given the high return on taking risks.
So, particularly upon entering puberty, those emotions (information) are accentuated, while in men those emotions are destroyed – hence that strange feeling of ‘darkness’ during male tenage years without the excitement of war and the hunt.
Gender specialization covers the entire spectrum of perception, memory, time, cognition, labor, advocacy, and negotiation. Our similarities are irrelevant for our cooperation, but our differences profound in choosing what we cooperate upon. In that division of perception, cognition and labor we produce a nash equilibrium of trading, thereby producing a pareto distribution of influence, and collectively defeat the dark forces of time and ignorance, in the slow incremental transcendence of man, from beast, to human, to the gods we imagine.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 12:52:00 UTC
-
It’s not complicated. Most men just don’t want to be lied to any longer. Whereas
It’s not complicated. Most men just don’t want to be lied to any longer. Whereas women find comfort in being lied to if it increases the incentive for harmony (decreases perceived conflcit, competition and threat).
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 12:10:00 UTC
-
“WHY ARE WE NOT SEEING A SHOCK FROM GENDER ASYMMETRY IN INDIA AND CHINA?”— 1-
—“WHY ARE WE NOT SEEING A SHOCK FROM GENDER ASYMMETRY IN INDIA AND CHINA?”—
1- Economic opportunity is masking conflict – as it always does. The return of economic limitations restores group conflicts.
2 – Substantial underclass populations still preserving family.
3 – So there is sex pressure but still hope.
4 – And there is marriage retention and still hope.
5 – Unlike the west, they are not wealthy enough to destroy the economic security of the family.
6 – Japan is the … oddity. (Low testosterone in asian men is not a good thing)
In any society where the woman are capable of both single motherhood and middle class (technological) workplace substitution of men, we should see a retreat to serial marriage and excess males. Males are cost to a woman while raising children if they are working.
This same effect won’t occur in populations with IQ’s below 95 (massive underclasses).
And the upper classes will always find greater competitive and status value in dual incomes or high male income with supported females.
Without eugenics either environmental, agrarian, or political, it is very hard to maintain human advancement.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 10:53:00 UTC
-
End community property, alimony, child support, welfare, and end all taxation un
End community property, alimony, child support, welfare, and end all taxation until one’s retirement is fully funded. At that point marriage is just a limited liability organization. Education loses value after grade six, so mix apprenticeship(work) with two hours of classes, which include accounting, statistics, basic economics and or the sciences and mathematics on the other. and logic and rhetoric.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 15:05:00 UTC
-
While We Can Cheat a Little Here and There, the Logic of Economics Is Pretty Obvious.
1) Every definition of capitalism vs socialism that I know of, and as far as I know, the very definition of the terms, is that of ownership. So as we say ‘word games’ are just that, and nothing more. 2) interest is necessary for the purpose of intertemporal measurement of theories of production distribution and trade. It is possible to argue that under fiat currency interest on consumption does not fulfill this function, and that we should, if possible, seek to eliminate interest on end point (consumer) consumption. However without interest we cannot know if we created or destroyed capital (time). 3) Marxists are wrong with the labor theory of value – labor (transformation) is effectively valueless, and it is the organization of production with or without labor that provides the multiples, and only voluntary exchange in the market that determines whether such hypothesized value was created.. 4) Socialist are wrong that (a) competitive production distribution and trade can be organized such that it supports any given scheme of production, (b) that people will do more than devote the minimum time and effort to production distribution and trade (c) that black markets will replace bad decisions, (d) that corruption is a given and funded by socialist means of production, (e) that any and all such attempts must of logical necessity fail. 5) Social democrats have finally realized that the result of their organizations is the loss of intertemporal incentive and therefore population necessary to preserve intertemporal transfers. 6) Keynesians have finally realized that their inflation effectively loses all productivity gains, and that the austrian predictions were correct that each attempt to suppress a correction only exacerbates the consequent corrections. 7) All monetarists have learned that the presumption of an infinite ability to inflate and therefore eliminate debt is only as true as trading partners tolerance for the calculability of contracts, and the predictability of networks of sustainable specialization and trade. So, you know, I consider pretty much everyone an idiot at this point and that while we can cheat a little here and there because of the vast amount of noise in any economy, the logic of economics is pretty obvious.
-
While We Can Cheat a Little Here and There, the Logic of Economics Is Pretty Obvious.
1) Every definition of capitalism vs socialism that I know of, and as far as I know, the very definition of the terms, is that of ownership. So as we say ‘word games’ are just that, and nothing more. 2) interest is necessary for the purpose of intertemporal measurement of theories of production distribution and trade. It is possible to argue that under fiat currency interest on consumption does not fulfill this function, and that we should, if possible, seek to eliminate interest on end point (consumer) consumption. However without interest we cannot know if we created or destroyed capital (time). 3) Marxists are wrong with the labor theory of value – labor (transformation) is effectively valueless, and it is the organization of production with or without labor that provides the multiples, and only voluntary exchange in the market that determines whether such hypothesized value was created.. 4) Socialist are wrong that (a) competitive production distribution and trade can be organized such that it supports any given scheme of production, (b) that people will do more than devote the minimum time and effort to production distribution and trade (c) that black markets will replace bad decisions, (d) that corruption is a given and funded by socialist means of production, (e) that any and all such attempts must of logical necessity fail. 5) Social democrats have finally realized that the result of their organizations is the loss of intertemporal incentive and therefore population necessary to preserve intertemporal transfers. 6) Keynesians have finally realized that their inflation effectively loses all productivity gains, and that the austrian predictions were correct that each attempt to suppress a correction only exacerbates the consequent corrections. 7) All monetarists have learned that the presumption of an infinite ability to inflate and therefore eliminate debt is only as true as trading partners tolerance for the calculability of contracts, and the predictability of networks of sustainable specialization and trade. So, you know, I consider pretty much everyone an idiot at this point and that while we can cheat a little here and there because of the vast amount of noise in any economy, the logic of economics is pretty obvious.
-
One Cannot Be Philosophically Literate without Knowledge of Economics for One Reason: Man’s Amoralism.
The empirical revolution, and its counter-revolution “the enlightenment”: the international attempt to restate local custom in local categories, relations, operations and values, other than deflationary empirical prose – because otherwise the extant order would not withstand such scrutiny. But that counter-revolution came from the most backwardly governed country in europe by a man of profoundly low (libertine) character who presumed an idyllic fictional (feminine actually) nature of mankind. A wish not a truth. Man is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. It is just nearly always more rewarding to act morally – at least over any period of time. One cannot be philosophically literate without knowledge of economics (incentives) precisely for this reason: man’s amoralism.
-
One Cannot Be Philosophically Literate without Knowledge of Economics for One Reason: Man’s Amoralism.
The empirical revolution, and its counter-revolution “the enlightenment”: the international attempt to restate local custom in local categories, relations, operations and values, other than deflationary empirical prose – because otherwise the extant order would not withstand such scrutiny. But that counter-revolution came from the most backwardly governed country in europe by a man of profoundly low (libertine) character who presumed an idyllic fictional (feminine actually) nature of mankind. A wish not a truth. Man is neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. It is just nearly always more rewarding to act morally – at least over any period of time. One cannot be philosophically literate without knowledge of economics (incentives) precisely for this reason: man’s amoralism.
-
The Military Industrial Complex Is a Good Thing.
—“What’s wrong with the military industrial complex?”—Steve Pender (rhetorical question) Nothing. At it’s very worst it is: (a) the optimum research and development investment, and (b) the optimum means of economic redistribution, (c) the optimum means of producing male investment in the social order, (d) the optimum means of producing male prosociality. (Besides we replaced it with the Cathedral complex and that’s the worst possible of each.)