RT @DegenRolf: Another long standing certainty of psychological science bites the dust: The idea that Japanese are typically collectivists.…
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-11 16:58:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1028324747015270401
IS ALL KNOWLEDGE IDEOLOGICAL?
There is knowledge that is correspondent, actionable, and predictive within reality and knowledge that is non-corresponded, actionable, and non predictive, and knowledge that is non-correspondent, inactionable, and non-predictive. And all combinations thereof.
KNOWLEDGE
– Correspondent vs ….non correspondent (with reality)
– Actionable …….vs …. in-actionable (by man)
– Predictive ……..vs …..non predictive (outcomes)
If one means all knowledge consists of paradigms that assist us in producing collective cooperation on the pursuit of ends, then that makes sense to me.
If one means that there is more agency in non-correspondence than correspondence that is only true in the pursuit of power – which is just pursuits of rents.
It’s not true if one has to hold power by it without perpetuating rents.
Rulers are tediously empirical in action, even if ideological in rhetoric.
They don’t have a choice.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 18:06:00 UTC
http://www.nber.org/papers/w24882#fromrssTELEVISION AND THE FREQUENCY OF SEX
Television and the frequency of sex
by Tyler Cowen August 6, 2018 at 12:42 pm in Data Source Television
Substitutes are indeed everywhere:
—This paper examines the association between television ownership and coital frequency using data from nearly 4 million individuals in national household surveys in 80 countries from 5 continents. The results suggest that while television may not kill your sex life, it is associated with some sex life morbidity. Under our most conservative estimate, we find that television ownership is associated with approximately a 6% reduction in the likelihood of having had sex in the past week, consistent with a small degree of substitutability between television viewing and sexual activity. Household wealth and reproductive health knowledge do not appear to be driving this association.”—
That is from a new NBER paper by Adrienne Lucas and Nicholas Wilson.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w24882#fromrssUpdated Aug 7, 2018, 4:14 PM
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 16:14:00 UTC
http://www.nber.org/papers/w24882#fromrsshttp://www.nber.org/papers/w24882#fromrssTELEVISION AND THE FREQUENCY OF SEX
Television and the frequency of sex
by Tyler Cowen August 6, 2018 at 12:42 pm in Data Source Television
Substitutes are indeed everywhere:
—This paper examines the association between television ownership and coital frequency using data from nearly 4 million individuals in national household surveys in 80 countries from 5 continents. The results suggest that while television may not kill your sex life, it is associated with some sex life morbidity. Under our most conservative estimate, we find that television ownership is associated with approximately a 6% reduction in the likelihood of having had sex in the past week, consistent with a small degree of substitutability between television viewing and sexual activity. Household wealth and reproductive health knowledge do not appear to be driving this association.”—
That is from a new NBER paper by Adrienne Lucas and Nicholas Wilson.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 16:14:00 UTC
Spent yesterday with my (amazing) daughter, understanding her research work (cystic fibrosis) and learning about the proteins involved and the diagnostic and treatment protocols.
On the drive back she worked up what seemed like the courage to ask me about my work, and I was surprised that like most people both norm and left, she seemed to think that I’m all about imposition on others, rather than liberty of all peoples to create states that produce commons that they want – and to pay the cost of those commons whether they like them or not.
It was interesting to talk to someone who is on the other end of the spectrum in some ways (she’s pretty traditional actually), and work through the question of why we can’t separate and creat our own happy little universes.
For some reason this whole ‘we’ thing is a stumbling block for most people. The very idea that the USGovernemtn is imperial over multiple cultures rather than a defender of states and their various cultures, is rather … difficult for me to empathize with.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 10:13:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(worth repeating) (series as proofs of constant relations)
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-03 12:25:42 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
WHITES ARE LESS CLANNISH (RACIST) THAN OTHER GROUPS – THATS JUST THE SCIENCE OF IT.
—“Interesting thought from Kevin MacDonald that I haven’t pondered before – many high-performing whites so aspie that they feel nothing for their people?”— John Mark
https://twitter.com/TOOEdit/status/1023311716422049793
Jayman and HBDChick both suggest that we developed lower clannishness, and the research supports it. The question is why. Either the value of human life in low population density (cold), or the cold’s influence on neoteny, or both.
Since it does not appear in the siberians/alut/amerindians (they are super predators) but it does in the east asians who have even greater neoteny than we do (to their detriment – although they use nationalism and racism as a defense against the weakness).
I suggest that it’s more likely the result of the mixture of pastoralism agrarianism metalworking, and winters, and the downward expansion of the middle class under manorialism.
I also suggest whites have far greater agency than any others, which is a male genetic property. This is why we differ from east asians. We have greater agency despite our parallel neoteny.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-01 16:20:40 UTC
https://twitter.com/TOOEdit/status/1023311716422049793https://twitter.com/TOOEdit/status/1023311716422049793WHITES ARE LESS CLANNISH (RACIST) THAN OTHER GROUPS – THATS JUST THE SCIENCE OF IT.
—“Interesting thought from Kevin MacDonald that I haven’t pondered before – many high-performing whites so aspie that they feel nothing for their people?”— John Mark
https://twitter.com/TOOEdit/status/1023311716422049793
Jayman and HBDChick both suggest that we developed lower clannishness, and the research supports it. The question is why. Either the value of human life in low population density (cold), or the cold’s influence on neoteny, or both.
Since it does not appear in the siberians/alut/amerindians (they are super predators) but it does in the east asians who have even greater neoteny than we do (to their detriment – although they use nationalism and racism as a defense against the weakness).
I suggest that it’s more likely the result of the mixture of pastoralism agrarianism metalworking, and winters, and the downward expansion of the middle class under manorialism.
I also suggest whites have far greater agency than any others, which is a male genetic property. This is why we differ from east asians. We have greater agency despite our parallel neoteny.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-01 12:20:00 UTC