It’s just science. Unfortunately there are too few of us with mutli-domain knowledge looking at these issues. Most of my work turns out to be linguistic analysis. And it doesn’t lie.
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-09 02:59:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711214658625978834
Reply addressees: @DiggingInTheDi1
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711211620930593264
No. It’s not complicated math.
The total solar radiation is on the order of 1361 watts per square meter. If we subtract human energy consumption we are already .8 watts per square meter out of balance (this is the best number I can find).
Quality of life is a mesure of energy capture per person.
Humans never lose their desire for novelty stimulation.
Humans never lose their demand for status accumulation.
Growth is a mesure of the conversion of energy per capital.
The planet needs under 4B and preferably only 1B people. And that’s not going to happen.
It is unlikely we will find a substitute for nuclear power. There is not enough nuclear fuel any more than there is petroleum. The sun is profoundly powerful but it doesn’t shine where peopel are. And we have no way of storing it or transporting it. If there is radioactive material in the asteroid belt that’s the only other cheap souce we know of. And it’sthe only thing once refined worth the energy to retrieve.
Reply addressees: @tim86975973 @NftSva
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-08 22:24:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711145596763938816
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711143030005133752
IT’s very hard to find cites on this because it’s a highly politicized (pseudoscience-heavy) subject. However, the research have seen has come out of IQ testing and SAT etc related studies. This difference appears most obviosly at the extreme, of talented women and men. The ‘noise’ in the general population obscures it in the study data that’s ‘popular’.
Another way of framing it is that ‘there is zero evidence of any theoretical contribution by women in any field because theory requires modeling. Instead we find that among the smartest women excdeptoinal insight into empirical data. This continues the pattern emerging at puberty where women are supperior at calculation at all ages, but boys begin rapidly to develop superiority after puberty. I’ve explained why this is elsewhere mulitiple times. But it’s just ‘in time vs over time’.
—-
The topic of sex differences in mathematical cognition has been a subject of considerable academic inquiry. While it’s important to note that not all individuals conform to these patterns, some general trends have been observed:
Verbal and Pictorial Strategies in Females
Studies have indicated that females often employ verbal and pictorial strategies when solving mathematical problems. This could involve translating the problem into a narrative form or visualizing it as a picture or diagram. The use of these strategies is thought to be linked to females’ generally stronger verbal abilities and may also be influenced by educational practices that encourage these methods.
Spatial and Physical Strategies in Males
Conversely, males are often found to utilize spatial and physical strategies. This could involve imagining the geometric or physical properties of the problem or manipulating objects to understand it better. These tendencies are often attributed to males’ generally stronger spatial abilities, although the reasons for this are still a subject of debate.
Educational Implications
The different cognitive strategies employed by males and females have implications for educational practices. Tailoring teaching methods to accommodate these different approaches could potentially improve mathematical understanding for both sexes.
Reply addressees: @DanielB02277937
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-08 21:42:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711135042691313664
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711131301061820482
In academic research, there aren’t any comprehensive books on this topic. Instead, the information is spread out across various scholarly papers and across multiple fields of study. This makes it challenging to get a full understanding without expertise in several areas.
I’ve spent more time and effort researching this complex issue than anyone else, except macdonald – because he worked on the jewish problem extensively and I have always seen the problem as cognitive differences – particularly sex differences.
Reply addressees: @adominguez792
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-08 21:31:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711132269010673664
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711128961869095373
And no I don’t want to hear your anti-jewish nonsense. I’m working toward a positive solution for our people. I had to ‘science’ the problem of the present age and it was decades of hard work at great personal cost. Some of that cost was psychological and some of it ended up being physical. Becuause ‘slumming’ with malcontents at every corner of the political spectrum was painful. And I’m done with that research and development. And I just don’t want to go ‘slumming’ any longer.
The result is updating our law, prohibiting all uses of the female strategy of undermining, critique, conflict generation, sedition, baiting into hazard, victim positioning, hiding behind plausible deniability, by everyone and anyone. With our modifications, the courts will once again allow us to prosecute those who are seditionists – ending the state’s ability to disintermediate the people from political actors. We will end ‘cancel culture’ which is another female expression that is a violation of the common law.
Yes the abrahamic religions use this strategy, as do the marxist pseudoscientific religions. But it’s the female strategy applied as an institutional means of civilizational warfare. Mean girls and those who proxy them are just following their instincts – rebelling because they are undesirable.
We are just as responsible for tolerating it as they are for using it. But we’re all bots. We are until we ‘science’ the subject. Now that we’ve scienced it we know it’s genetic, instinctual, a cognitive differencde and wrapped in cultural dogman and justification – and it’s ancient.
But your whining is pathetic, tiresome, annoying and I’ll just block you. So don’t bother to respond.
Thanks.
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-08 21:24:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1711130557122265088
It takes a bit of work to understand @EricRWeinstein’s ‘take’ on physics. But it’s based on three very clear talents, the first is disambiguation of causal dimensions; and second extraordinary skepticism until he’s achieved that disambituation; and the third is the usual…
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-08 00:25:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710813640792637784
It takes a bit of work to understand @EricRWeinstein’s ‘take’ on physics. But it’s based on three very clear talents, the first is disambiguation of causal dimensions; and second extraordinary skepticism until he’s achieved that disambituation; and the third is the usual Ashkenazi excellence in explanation by storytelling. And lastly, in opposition, or fourth, he is a better critic than innovator himself – which might sound like a criticism, but it’s more of a recognition of a specialization and a specialization that’s due to his self described “learning disability” (dyslexia?) and frustrations with the university’s inflexibility.
I had to listen to his speech at Harvard on his theory of what I consider ‘the direction of the solution to the problem’ but not a solution in itself. Then at some point I heard him explain a disambiguation of dimensions. And it was this latter that helped me understand how his mind approaches problems. Tonight, I just heared him use the same method to address a very different problem and recognized his method again.
It’s not dissimilar from my work on disambituation in to first principles. He’s just doing it with physics and mathematics(cardinality) and I’m doing it with behavior and operationalism(natural order).
He’s improved quite a bit over the past few years. Although I would prefer that he take on the hard job of proposing actionable solutions. I mean, everyone can compain. Producing actionable solutions is something else entirely.
In my experiencde, producing a consitution that isn’t ridiculous and is an improvement on our own required a profound effort on my part. And whenever I hear someone talk about our constitution or our law or our political system, I’m tempted to suggest they write a constitution that isn’t even worse.
It never hapens
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-08 00:25:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710813640574509056
Yes Evan.
Excellent piece. Right frame. Good neutral position. Compassion for all parties. Well stated and produced. Best and most thorough, most empirical and least ideological I’ve seen or read.
I make the same argument. And the constitutional and legal and policy (and scientific) reforms I’ve put forward make this possible and preferable.
So agreed. Will share and promote. Added to Institute playlist.
(Researching you a bit)
Q: Any chance we could convince you to give a talk on this subject at a conference?
Cheers
SOME NOTES WHILE LISTENING
The solution historically in the Holy Roman Empire was ‘free cities’ which maintains limited federal control while allowing free cities (City States) to maintain their preferences given they tend to have non-local interests.
As stated conflict will continue between ‘Red’ areas in which people bear high responsibility, cost of commons, norms and high opportunity costs of cooperation, and ‘blue’ areas in which people CAN’T bear those responsiblities but benefit from low opportunity costs of cooperation. (“Diffusion of Responsibility”)
In urban density, without demand for coherence (integration), it’s in the individual’s interest to double down on traditional existing cultural differences – simply because the risk, negotiation, opportunity, cooperation, and transation costs are lowest with ingroup members. (It’s hard to trust people who are very different from you because they signal differently.)
However, once this high responsibility territorial vs low responsibility urban difference in legal and passport change, produces the deterministic outputs, there will be the equivalent of white-flight from the urban areas, continuing urban decline, and creating favelas. (“Feeding irresponsiblity”)
(RE: “Moral Codes”) The absence of a universal system of behavioral measurement creates demand for authority. (“Intervention”). Creating lower trust polities. Why? Because it imposes risk, opportunity, and transaction costs. So ‘tolerance’ becomes a virtue rather than the crime of free riding on the high trust of the polity by irresponsibilty for preserving the high trust manners, ethics, morals and norms.
There is no evidience that in the presence of present communication and transport that cities will remain the residencde of preference – or at least the cities we currently have. Look at office occupancy rates.
All benefits of density are consumed by increases in mortgage and rents. This is only possible if companies that produce disproportionate returns (usually international or financial).
This political competition should cause a change in behavior to these city states if they are not trapped demographically (most are).
Our form of government is predicated on the principle of ‘concurrency’ creating a market for cooperation between the classes and regions. So we would have to change the senate requiring concurrency between the two systems, just as we need separate the house very likely by class if not also by sex – which if you undestand the data is the source of the problem. More so the single childless women the source of the skew in voting.
The belief that you could pursue this universal-whatever policies is simply irrelevant because they have the voting power to do so already, but the economics do not support the ideology.
(BTW: good work).
PS: appears that sound on the video is mono and only on left stereo channel. Might do to re-process.
Reply addressees: @EvanMantri
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-06 02:12:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710115787703205888
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710094142246941095
–“Will we ever discover -temp superconductors?”–
Very hard to know. It, like cold fusion, unlikely. However, the discovery of graphene, despite knowing about carbon fiber for a century, was an example of how we can’t put too much confidence in presumptions of the potential properties of materials.
Many complex molecules in the physical world, like complex molecules (proteins) in the biological world, can produce emergent properties that we are unaware of. Likewise many complex alloys produce emergent properties. But everything I’ve seen during my lifetime is consistently discouraging. 😉
However, we are limited by our knowledge of our environment that is the product of our third generation star. While it appears that producing new elements is quite difficult it is not clear that different stars, different planets, with much higher mass and temperature, either during it’s ordinary life cycle, or during it’s collapse will not produce heavier elements with as yet odd properties, such as vastly higher energy storage and dissipation.
So we can’t be sure. IMO it is very unlikely that we will produce superconductors without temperature or pressure constraints, and that in general light statisfies most if not all of the benefits that we seek from exotic materials. (which is where computing is going if I am correct.)
Reply addressees: @OtonielFilho5
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-05 23:43:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710078218244435968
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1710061751025234413
I just do the science. Science means testimony. Testimony means true. The truth allows us to solve problems. Lying serves to circumvent them. If you are in favor of lying before truth, then that is fine. It also means you are unqualified for adult political discourse.
Source date (UTC): 2023-10-04 00:18:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1709362238211994009
Reply addressees: @subaduba @mansoortshams
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1709358317028467169