[W]e’re gonna get crushed with demand for expansion this year. Seriously. The window is over us, John has given us critical mass. Political ‘Organization’ launch. Building out courses, additional content creators, publishing constitution. Now is when we need Megan or someone like that to recruit profs to make courseware and she’s too busy. So we’ll have to work on that too. And on top of it we’ll need to start raising funds to pay for staff to do it all. …. (omg. mercy.)
Theme: Institution
-
Criminality Is Genetic and Dysgenia Is an Institutional Failure
Criminality Is Genetic and Dysgenia Is an Institutional Failure https://propertarianism.com/2020/03/03/criminality-is-genetic-and-dysgenia-is-an-institutional-failure/
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-03 13:06:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234827500586442752
-
Criminality Is Genetic and Dysgenia Is an Institutional Failure
CRIMINALITY IS GENETIC AND DYSGENIA IS AN INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE
—“No. Steven Pinker explained this very well. If parenting had an effect at all, it would turn up in the shared environment. It doesn’t.”—JayMan @JayMan471 —“How do you explain single mothers parenting vastly increasing incarceration and unsocial behaviour.”— tweeter
1) Mothers do not remarry(control, infantilization) or permit others to parent, fathers do. 2) Single mothers don’t cohabit with grandparents as substitute. 3) Single mothers transfer insecurity to children (instability) 4) Increase in female psychosis under feminism. Tolerance?
—“None of those things.”—JayMan@JayMan471
What is it instead? 😉 because those things compensated for class (genetic) differences. Which is what I assume you’re going to say. Add: 5) school environment exacerbates. 6) pharmaceuticals (and drugs) exacerbate. 7) recent evidence (female) social media. 8) increase in under-lower class size. So, one can say: 9) increase in anti social behavior. 10) increase in population with it. 11) increase prosecution of it. Edit: ( 11a. in class sortition bc of colleges, and concentrating dysgenia at the bottom – this one is important. ) or 12) decrease in institutional means of compensating for it, suppressing it, and preventing it with marriage, family, community, norm, tradition, and institution. And we can frame the question: (a) are we more aware of it? (b) is there more of it (decline)? (c) are there more people biasing it (population)? (d) are informal and formal institutions no longer controlling it? (e) environmental factors (as w/ lead) (f) all of the above. I read the same papers everyone else does. the disputes are generally categorized as misinterpretation of the top down correlative and categorical; bottom up constructive and individual; and incentives in the constructive that test both. Unfortunately, full accounting is rare. So, to deal with pinker’s assertion that it’s purely genetic, sure. The question then is whether we are just more aware of it, just prosecute it more, increasing dysgenia, or we are failing to mask it with institutions. ie: My original comment’s suggestion: institutions failing. And again, when Jayman disagrees with me it’s because he jumps to the conclusion that I’m making an argument that I am not. 😉 The argument is: Institutional failure. Because dysgenia at present is caused by institutional failure. All of these causes are institutional failures.
-
Criminality Is Genetic and Dysgenia Is an Institutional Failure
CRIMINALITY IS GENETIC AND DYSGENIA IS AN INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE
—“No. Steven Pinker explained this very well. If parenting had an effect at all, it would turn up in the shared environment. It doesn’t.”—JayMan @JayMan471 —“How do you explain single mothers parenting vastly increasing incarceration and unsocial behaviour.”— tweeter
1) Mothers do not remarry(control, infantilization) or permit others to parent, fathers do. 2) Single mothers don’t cohabit with grandparents as substitute. 3) Single mothers transfer insecurity to children (instability) 4) Increase in female psychosis under feminism. Tolerance?
—“None of those things.”—JayMan@JayMan471
What is it instead? 😉 because those things compensated for class (genetic) differences. Which is what I assume you’re going to say. Add: 5) school environment exacerbates. 6) pharmaceuticals (and drugs) exacerbate. 7) recent evidence (female) social media. 8) increase in under-lower class size. So, one can say: 9) increase in anti social behavior. 10) increase in population with it. 11) increase prosecution of it. Edit: ( 11a. in class sortition bc of colleges, and concentrating dysgenia at the bottom – this one is important. ) or 12) decrease in institutional means of compensating for it, suppressing it, and preventing it with marriage, family, community, norm, tradition, and institution. And we can frame the question: (a) are we more aware of it? (b) is there more of it (decline)? (c) are there more people biasing it (population)? (d) are informal and formal institutions no longer controlling it? (e) environmental factors (as w/ lead) (f) all of the above. I read the same papers everyone else does. the disputes are generally categorized as misinterpretation of the top down correlative and categorical; bottom up constructive and individual; and incentives in the constructive that test both. Unfortunately, full accounting is rare. So, to deal with pinker’s assertion that it’s purely genetic, sure. The question then is whether we are just more aware of it, just prosecute it more, increasing dysgenia, or we are failing to mask it with institutions. ie: My original comment’s suggestion: institutions failing. And again, when Jayman disagrees with me it’s because he jumps to the conclusion that I’m making an argument that I am not. 😉 The argument is: Institutional failure. Because dysgenia at present is caused by institutional failure. All of these causes are institutional failures.
-
The Law of Cycles of Political Orders
The Law of Cycles of Political Orders https://propertarianism.com/2020/03/03/the-law-of-cycles-of-political-orders/
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-03 13:03:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234826791610654726
-
The Law of Cycles of Political Orders
THE LAW OF THE CYCLES OF POLITICAL ORDERS (core) [O]rganizations evolve to exploit an opportunity that can only be exploited by organizations. The organizational myth, history, tradition, rules, methods of description, persuasion, and argument expand until all available opportunity, rents, extractions, and predations under it are exhausted and all incentives to persist the organization are exhausted by enough of the population that they are incentivized to seek other opportunities. At that point in the shift of incentives, the opportunity that evolves is radical extra-political reorganization of capital, elites, and institutions, to eliminate the accumulated, rents, extractions, and predations so that incentive to persist organization of the polity, society, community, is restored. This reorganization can consist of three possibilities, including i) retention of strategy but redistribution of capital and restructuring of institutions (best if say, under rule of law), ii) rotation of strategy, elites, and restructuring of institutions (best if say, under rule of legislation), or iii) replacement of strategy, elites, institutions altogether (best if under tyranny). For example Picketty is right in some sense, but it turns out that the aristocracies were actually better than we thought because they had Hoppeian incentives to avoid the tragedy of the commons, and to persist the polity and society while continuously reorganizing the institutions and elites. This is why we ( or at least I) have recommended (in the new constitutional amendments) capital reallocation, institutional reformation, and a shift back to intergenerational elites, on a scale not seen since the roman reforms. We don’t do things too badly. But our 20th century experiments in variations on the ancient tripartite order under rule of law largely didn’t work. There is a reason we evolved so quickly compared to other civilizations despite the dark ages. We already invented perfect government. We just didn’t adapt it correctly in response to the industrial revolution. Because we didn’t understand why we’d been successful. Now we do. Cheers.
-
The Law of Cycles of Political Orders
THE LAW OF THE CYCLES OF POLITICAL ORDERS (core) [O]rganizations evolve to exploit an opportunity that can only be exploited by organizations. The organizational myth, history, tradition, rules, methods of description, persuasion, and argument expand until all available opportunity, rents, extractions, and predations under it are exhausted and all incentives to persist the organization are exhausted by enough of the population that they are incentivized to seek other opportunities. At that point in the shift of incentives, the opportunity that evolves is radical extra-political reorganization of capital, elites, and institutions, to eliminate the accumulated, rents, extractions, and predations so that incentive to persist organization of the polity, society, community, is restored. This reorganization can consist of three possibilities, including i) retention of strategy but redistribution of capital and restructuring of institutions (best if say, under rule of law), ii) rotation of strategy, elites, and restructuring of institutions (best if say, under rule of legislation), or iii) replacement of strategy, elites, institutions altogether (best if under tyranny). For example Picketty is right in some sense, but it turns out that the aristocracies were actually better than we thought because they had Hoppeian incentives to avoid the tragedy of the commons, and to persist the polity and society while continuously reorganizing the institutions and elites. This is why we ( or at least I) have recommended (in the new constitutional amendments) capital reallocation, institutional reformation, and a shift back to intergenerational elites, on a scale not seen since the roman reforms. We don’t do things too badly. But our 20th century experiments in variations on the ancient tripartite order under rule of law largely didn’t work. There is a reason we evolved so quickly compared to other civilizations despite the dark ages. We already invented perfect government. We just didn’t adapt it correctly in response to the industrial revolution. Because we didn’t understand why we’d been successful. Now we do. Cheers.
-
THE LAW OF THE CYCLES OF POLITICAL ORDERS (thanks for the invite to comment) Org
THE LAW OF THE CYCLES OF POLITICAL ORDERS
(thanks for the invite to comment)
Organizations evolve to exploit an opportunity that can only be exploited by organizations.
The organizational myth, history, tradition, rules, methods of description, persuas… https://ift.tt/2ThU3kS
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-02 23:29:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234621797968023552
-
And again, when Jayman disagrees with me it’s because he jumps to the conclusion
And again, when Jayman disagrees with me it’s because he jumps to the conclusion that I’m making an argument that I am not. 😉
Institutional failure.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-02 16:39:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234518823522488322
Reply addressees: @JayMan471 @Mywifesson4
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234518291487612929
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@JayMan471 @Mywifesson4 So, to deal with pinker’s assertion that it’s purely genetic, sure. The question then is whether we are just more aware of it, just prosecute it more, increasing dysgenia, or we are failing to mask it with institutions.
ie: My original comment’s suggestion: institutions failing.Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1234518291487612929
-
And we can frame the question: (a) are we more aware of it? (b) is there more of
And we can frame the question:
(a) are we more aware of it?
(b) is there more of it (decline)?
(c) are there more people biasing it (population)?
(d) are informal and formal institutions no longer controlling it?
(e) environmental factors (as w/ lead)
(f) all of the above.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-02 16:32:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234516884848021506
Reply addressees: @JayMan471 @Mywifesson4
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1234516171904385024
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@JayMan471 @Mywifesson4 So, one can say:
9) increase in anti social behavior.
10) increase in population with it.
11) increase prosecution of it.
or
12) decrease in institutional means of compensating for it with family, community, norm, tradition, and institution.Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1234516171904385024