PERSONALITY “TESTS”
MBTI is the finger-paint version of the Big Five/Six(Minnesota Multiphasic), which the crayon version of evolutionary biology, which is the painterly version of bio-chemistry, which in itself is the calculus of demonstrated behavior.
Don’t get excited about precision. For some people finger painting and crayons suit their skill level and needs.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 09:55:00 UTC
SORRY ABRAHAMISTS. FACE REALITY – NEVER AGAIN.
We complete the scientific method and the european, greco, roman, germanic program, and in doing so write it into law and end your fraud in supernatural, pseudo-rational (counter-enligthenment), and pseudoscientific (contemporary) eras. Never again.
LOOK:
Operational grammar, semantics, and testability (calculation and falsificationism)
-vs-
fictionalist grammar and semantics and untestability (sophism and justificationism).
It’s not an OPINION. It’s just a FACT. Sorry. It’s the difference between numerology, astrology, semitic mysticism, monopoly, and semitic law, vs mathematics, science, historical mythology, competing disciplines, and tort (natural) law.
I mean, it’s not an opinion any more than that there is a substantial difference between arithmetic and geometry or measurement vs analogy.
I mean, I know this is hard for mortal minds to grasp, but it sure as hell shouldn’t be.
Abrahamic religion is the language of lying. Egyptian and Hindu religions are merely mythologies (wisdom literatures) not laws. Buddhism was originally a very poorly stated means of self discipline producing what we call mindfulness (self control). Confucianism is much closer to reason within the limits of chinese language, concepts, grammar and technology. But the abrahamic religions claim to be both a monopoly, and true, and singular. And they are presented and argued using conflationar grammar and semantics, justificationism, and sophism we call ‘Pilpul’ (the verbal equivalent of numerology).
There is nothing good in abrahamic religions that cannot be stated without lying. There is everything bad in those religions because they evolved to teach us to lie, are taught by lying, and defended by lies and sophisms, and produced externalities the horrors of which are the darkest mark in human history.
The abrahamic innovation reversing greek reason resulted in Judaism under which the most educated people in europe accomplishing absolutely nothing except conspiring with the state against the people then being cyclically exterminated for it. Christianity accomplished nothing other than destroying germanic culture, eliminating the ability of europeans to defend themselves until the VIking restoration, privatizing literacy as a means of control and submission, turning 50% of european capital dead and for no other purpose than rents, and creating the largest and most corrupt and parasitic bureaucracy in human history. Islam accomplished nothing except the consumption and extermination of all the great civilizations of the ancient world, and reducing all peoples under its influence to dysgenic, ignorant, superstitious, aggressive emoters, and leaving 3/4 of a billion people dead in their wake. The abrahamic dark age was the darkest event in human history, and while the great plagues were devastating, it is patently obvious that abrahamic pilpul and its fictionalism was worse than anything other than malaria.
No no. Your lies are done.
NEVER AGAIN.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 15:32:00 UTC
—“…all women are different…”— A distinction without a difference. It is almost as impossible to have a scientific conversation with women about philosophy, economics, politics, and war as it is for a man to have a conversation about relationships, carrying a baby, nursing and how ‘beautiful and special’ her lower 80% munchkin is. Seriously. Even the fact that one would say such a thing is evidence – because that statement is an instance of NAXALT. It means you’re empirically blind: that there is no normal distribution and in particular that the vast majority are indifferent. I expect a woman to love me, care for me, and try to make me better and happier than I am. And women are in general, if you are worth having as a mate, pretty good at it – and often even if you aren’t worth having as a mate. The best relationship for a man to have with a woman is where you listen to her, fulfill her wants and needs, try to help her be all she can be, listen to her insights into people she has spoken to, cherish each other and the time together, but never take her opinions beyond those wants, needs, relationships, and your relationship more seriously than you do the impulsive fascinations of your golden retriever has with disgusting smells. Just as all but a minority of men are empathically blind, all but a minority of women are morally blind. They have to be. Or they would never bear and raise children – 80% of which are of necessity in the bottom 80%. Female puberty produces marginal insanity for good reason. You’d have to be insane to care for babies, toddlers, and dependent children. Female marginal insanity is an evolutionary adaptation necessary for our survival. The fact that this was common knowledge in all cultures until the Victorians tried to corral the newly liberated lower classes, advertisers found women spent 70% of world income, and feminists tried to take power from white men, is merely a blip in the stream of history. I love women but I know I am blind to the things women are not, just as I know women are blind deaf and dumb to anything they cannot feel. And I hate that I even have to write about such things, because it’s the lies that these things are not both true and obvious that cause the difficulties in our relationships. (A simple experiment: Watch the View for a week and observe how women can make excuses to justify anything that will bring about consensus no matter how false, impossible, or outright stupid. It doesn’t matter the topic. Just watch the absurd excuses they will make to generate consensus on a status quo. )
—“…all women are different…”— A distinction without a difference. It is almost as impossible to have a scientific conversation with women about philosophy, economics, politics, and war as it is for a man to have a conversation about relationships, carrying a baby, nursing and how ‘beautiful and special’ her lower 80% munchkin is. Seriously. Even the fact that one would say such a thing is evidence – because that statement is an instance of NAXALT. It means you’re empirically blind: that there is no normal distribution and in particular that the vast majority are indifferent. I expect a woman to love me, care for me, and try to make me better and happier than I am. And women are in general, if you are worth having as a mate, pretty good at it – and often even if you aren’t worth having as a mate. The best relationship for a man to have with a woman is where you listen to her, fulfill her wants and needs, try to help her be all she can be, listen to her insights into people she has spoken to, cherish each other and the time together, but never take her opinions beyond those wants, needs, relationships, and your relationship more seriously than you do the impulsive fascinations of your golden retriever has with disgusting smells. Just as all but a minority of men are empathically blind, all but a minority of women are morally blind. They have to be. Or they would never bear and raise children – 80% of which are of necessity in the bottom 80%. Female puberty produces marginal insanity for good reason. You’d have to be insane to care for babies, toddlers, and dependent children. Female marginal insanity is an evolutionary adaptation necessary for our survival. The fact that this was common knowledge in all cultures until the Victorians tried to corral the newly liberated lower classes, advertisers found women spent 70% of world income, and feminists tried to take power from white men, is merely a blip in the stream of history. I love women but I know I am blind to the things women are not, just as I know women are blind deaf and dumb to anything they cannot feel. And I hate that I even have to write about such things, because it’s the lies that these things are not both true and obvious that cause the difficulties in our relationships. (A simple experiment: Watch the View for a week and observe how women can make excuses to justify anything that will bring about consensus no matter how false, impossible, or outright stupid. It doesn’t matter the topic. Just watch the absurd excuses they will make to generate consensus on a status quo. )
COUNTER SIGNALING NAXALT: WE ARE COMPATIBLE OPPOSITES
—“…all women are different…”—
A distinction without a difference. It is almost as impossible to have a scientific conversation with women about philosophy, economics, politics, and war as it is for a man to have a conversation about relationships, carrying a baby, nursing and how ‘beautiful and special’ her lower 80% munchkin is.
Seriously. Even the fact that one would say such a thing is evidence – because that statement is an instance of NAXALT. It means you’re empirically blind: that there is no normal distribution and in particular that the vast majority are indifferent.
I expect a woman to love me, care for me, and try to make me better and happier than I am. And women are in general, if you are worth having as a mate, pretty good at it – and often even if you aren’t worth having as a mate.
The best relationship for a man to have with a woman is where you listen to her, fulfill her wants and needs, try to help her be all she can be, listen to her insights into people she has spoken to, cherish each other and the time together, but never take her opinions beyond those wants, needs, relationships, and your relationship more seriously than you do the impulsive fascinations of your golden retriever has with disgusting smells.
Just as all but a minority of men are empathically blind, all but a minority of women are morally blind. They have to be. Or they would never bear and raise children – 80% of which are of necessity in the bottom 80%. Female puberty produces marginal insanity for good reason. You’d have to be insane to care for babies, toddlers, and dependent children. Female marginal insanity is an evolutionary adaptation necessary for our survival.
The fact that this was common knowledge in all cultures until the Victorians tried to corral the newly liberated lower classes, advertisers found women spent 70% of world income, and feminists tried to take power from white men, is merely a blip in the stream of history.
I love women but I know I am blind to the things women are not, just as I know women are blind deaf and dumb to anything they cannot feel.
And I hate that I even have to write about such things, because it’s the lies that these things are not both true and obvious that cause the difficulties in our relationships.
(A simple experiment: Watch the View for a week and observe how women can make excuses to justify anything that will bring about consensus no matter how false, impossible, or outright stupid. It doesn’t matter the topic. Just watch the absurd excuses they will make to generate consensus on a status quo. )
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 13:30:00 UTC
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.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-05 08:48:00 UTC
At our stage of development when we are at an in-between stage, and very nearly at the limit of our ability to construct tools (experiments) by which to conduct observations (measurements), yet unable to discover the pattern of relations that describe the next levels of complexity (the structure of the universe on one end and sentience on the other, and where we have all but exhausted research into subjects at human scale, we have passed the point at which one can spend enough time on enough subjects to master their application. It is however possible to master the fundamental patterns that cross all disciplines. The reason being that there are a very small number of fundamental laws. And to some degree the grammar and semantics we are searching for, consists of that set of categories, relations, values and operations (transforms).
At our stage of development when we are at an in-between stage, and very nearly at the limit of our ability to construct tools (experiments) by which to conduct observations (measurements), yet unable to discover the pattern of relations that describe the next levels of complexity (the structure of the universe on one end and sentience on the other, and where we have all but exhausted research into subjects at human scale, we have passed the point at which one can spend enough time on enough subjects to master their application. It is however possible to master the fundamental patterns that cross all disciplines. The reason being that there are a very small number of fundamental laws. And to some degree the grammar and semantics we are searching for, consists of that set of categories, relations, values and operations (transforms).
—“The earth is situated in a tiny, sparsely populated spur off of one of the spiral arms in the galaxy. In other words, we are located in the middle of nowhere. And we’ve only been communicating in the electromagnetic spectrum for about 100 years. It’s very likely that no one knows that we are here.”—Eric Blankenburg
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-04 11:59:00 UTC
IT IS VERY HARD NOT TO SPECIALIZE – FOR NOW
At our stage of development when we are at an in-between stage, and very nearly at the limit of our ability to construct tools (experiments) by which to conduct observations (measurements), yet unable to discover the pattern of relations that describe the next levels of complexity (the structure of the universe on one end and sentience on the other, and where we have all but exhausted research into subjects at human scale, we have passed the point at which one can spend enough time on enough subjects to master their application. It is however possible to master the fundamental patterns that cross all disciplines. The reason being that there are a very small number of fundamental laws. And to some degree the grammar and semantics we are searching for, consists of that set of categories, relations, values and operations (transforms).
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-04 07:08:00 UTC