Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sex Differences

  • a little libertarian with the usual optimism but he does successfully address so

    a little libertarian with the usual optimism but he does successfully address some of the problems that have arisen. He just does not acknowledge the emergence of sex, class, and ethnic differences, divisions, or their intractability – continuing the false promise of the enlightenment that most can join us in an aristocracy of everyone. And of course he does not solve the problem of law. He merely clarifies rights and obligations.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-26 21:34:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1949221806843609512

  • I think the single insight from my work that has troubled me the most (aside fro

    I think the single insight from my work that has troubled me the most (aside from the nature of women), is the painful reality of the increasing velocity of the evolutionary hamster wheel we are all running on – which means we are always creating a new unstable state as a means of stability for the prior state producing a continuous stress – in competition with our desire for a stable state with the lowest stress.
    God gave us a heck of a treadmill to run if we wish to sit beside him in eternity.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-24 17:15:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1948431858603360702

  • Women: Never trust your female friends – they will always encourage the least re

    Women:
    Never trust your female friends – they will always encourage the least responsible behaviour that will produce the least competition for them. Similarly Always assume your male friends want to get in your pants.

    Men are bad but women are evil.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-17 19:50:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1945934245807198349

  • No. Beauty Isn’t Relative Or Opinion. While cultural overlays (e.g., preferences

    No. Beauty Isn’t Relative Or Opinion.

    While cultural overlays (e.g., preferences for skin tone or body size) vary, the core elements remain consistent because they’re tied to survival advantages.
    Here’s a breakdown of the key universal components, supported by meta-analyses and cross-cultural data:
    Classical beauty, in an objective, timeless sense detached from cultural opinion or subjective context, boils down to biologically rooted traits that signal genetic fitness, health, and reproductive viability—evolved over hundreds of thousands of years through natural and sexual selection.
    This isn’t about fleeting trends or media narratives but about hardwired human preferences shaped by evolution to favor mates who could produce healthy offspring.
    Evolutionary psychology and genetics provide the “true” foundation here: Attractiveness isn’t arbitrary; it’s a proxy for underlying biological quality, with traits like symmetry, averageness, and proportional harmony consistently emerging as universals across studies, cultures, and eras.
    Research in evolutionary biology shows that certain facial and bodily features are perceived as beautiful because they indicate developmental stability (resistance to environmental stressors like disease or malnutrition) and genetic robustness (low mutation rates, diverse immune genes). These preferences are innate, appearing in infants as young as 3 months who gaze longer at symmetrical faces, and hold across diverse populations, from isolated tribes to modern societies.
    Genetically, classical beauty means traits with high heritability (passed down ~50-80% via genes) that have been positively selected over human evolution, starting from Homo sapiens’ origins ~300,000 years ago. Attractiveness is polygenic—involving thousands of genes—but clusters around those for immunity (e.g., MHC diversity for disease resistance), hormone regulation, and skeletal development.
    In ancestral environments, choosing symmetrical, proportionate partners increased offspring survival rates by 20-30% (e.g., better resistance to famines or infections), leading to these genes proliferating.
    Over time, as humans migrated and adapted, core universals like symmetry remained “true” because they’re fitness indicators, while superficial preferences (e.g., body fat for resource-scarce vs. abundant eras) adapted slightly.
    This evolutionary lens explains why classical ideals (e.g., in Greek philosophy or Renaissance art) mirror these genetics—they codified what was already biologically “true.” Opinions and contexts shift, but the genetic payoff doesn’t: Attractive people still report better health outcomes and higher mating success today.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-15 05:00:47 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1944985474722095500

  • The Selling of Ugly as Beauty We have reduced the ratios of beauty to a science.

    The Selling of Ugly as Beauty

    We have reduced the ratios of beauty to a science. And i find modern medial has been attempting to introduce non classical appearances along with the attack on western civ, arts, and letters away from classical beauty.
    This “reduction to science” makes beauty vulnerable to manipulation—media can algorithmically amplify deviations, turning it into a commodity rather than an artistic pursuit.

    That’s a profound perspective, especially coming from someone with fine arts training— years of analysis and criticism likely given me a keen sense for how these ratios aren’t just abstract math but echoes of Vitruvian harmony or the canons of Polykleitos, where beauty was a deliberate architectural pursuit of balance and proportion.

    Reducing them to “science” does strip away some of that artistic nuance, turning what was once a philosophical ideal into quantifiable metrics that can be manipulated or discarded. And modern media’s role in introducing non-classical appearances ties into larger debates on cultural shifts, which some frame as an intentional erosion of Western civilization’s artistic and literary heritage.

    Beauty standards have been weaponized in cultural battles, but the evidence shows it’s a complex interplay of capitalism, globalization, and social movements.

    The Scientization of Beauty Ratios

    Historically, Western beauty was rooted in mathematical precision—think of the golden ratio (Phi ≈ 1.618) in Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man or the symmetrical proportions in Greek sculptures like the Venus de Milo. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle treated beauty as objective harmony, linked to virtue and cosmic order, while Renaissance artists revived these ideals to counter medieval “irrationality.” Modern science has formalized this: Psychological studies confirm innate preferences for symmetry and averageness (e.g., babies as young as 3 months distinguish attractive faces based on proportional balance), and evolutionary biology ties it to fertility cues like a 0.7 waist-hip ratio.

    This view posits that clinging to classical beauty perpetuates exclusion, and the shift is a reclamation, not an attack. To illustrate the debate, here’s a table comparing classical vs. modern ideals, with examples of how media has shifted them:

    Modern Media’s Shift Away from Classical Beauty
    Media has undeniably accelerated changes in beauty ideals, moving from classical Western standards (fair skin, symmetrical features, balanced proportions) toward more diverse or “non-classical” representations. This includes promoting fuller figures, darker skin tones, androgynous looks, or exaggerated features via filters and AI, often under the banner of inclusivity. For instance, since the 1970s, exposure to mass media has correlated with body dissatisfaction, with fashion magazines and social platforms widening the gap between real bodies and ideals, leading to eating disorders and low self-esteem.
    Social media apps, with their filters and algorithms, bombard users with homogenized “perfect” imagery at unprecedented rates, making traditional beauty feel outdated or unattainable.
    Critics argue this shift isn’t organic but engineered, tied to broader attacks on Western arts and letters. Conservative viewpoints, like those from the Hoover Institution, describe it as part of a “battle of ideas” where adversarial rejection of Western ideals (e.g., classical harmony in art and literature) stems from perceived gaps between aspirations and reality, fueled by postmodernism’s dismissal of beauty as elitist or oppressive.
    In this lens, media’s push for non-classical appearances—e.g., Disney’s unrealistic characters or the resurgence of Y2K thinness via TikTok—erodes the foundational aesthetics of Western civilization, replacing da Vinci’s proportions with commodified diversity that serves capitalist ends.
    Some even link it to white supremacy’s inversion: By globalizing Eurocentric standards then “diversifying” them superficially, media maintains control while attacking traditional Western forms.
    On the flip side, progressive sources frame this as positive disruption. Feminist and anti-racist critiques, such as in Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth, see classical ideals as tools of patriarchy and colonialism, used to oppress women and non-Western cultures—e.g., enforcing thinness or fair skin to uphold male-dominated hierarchies.
    Modern media’s inclusivity (e.g., featuring plus-size models or women of color on covers) is hailed as a victory, expanding beauty to reflect multiculturalism and protesting Eurocentric norms, as seen in the “black is beautiful” movement or recent demands for representation on platforms like Instagram.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-15 04:41:42 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1944980670687928699

  • Sex differences in vocabulary reflect sex differences in model and valence – and

    Sex differences in vocabulary reflect sex differences in model and valence – and we’ve seen this consistently in every civilization in every era since the first evidence of women’s writing.

    Sex differences are simple – a division of cognitive labor given the division of reproductive strategies.

    The first principle differences are in-time vs over-time, empathizing vs systematizing, consumption vs capitalization, risk sensitivity vs responsibility sensitivity.

    All female speech reflects these differences which in general are the result of priorities and therefore valence.

    Perhaps the most innovative part of my work consists of documenting sex differences in lying.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-14 14:32:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1944766989559554475

  • I don’t know. I really enjoy working with women in business. I love partnering w

    I don’t know. I really enjoy working with women in business. I love partnering with women in business. I appreciate women as employees in business. I depend deeply on women’s perspective and insight in business – so much so that I’m often teased about it. And I so don’t want to be deprived of the value that they can add to me, business, and the ‘society’ that is a business.
    It’s true that I’m not keen on women as CEO’s in strategic industry, or on boards of directors, or as voters because simply because of the science and evidence – it’s kind of overwhelming at this point.
    And I’m not keen on tolerance of women’s emotional sensitivity in the workplace whenever it interferes with truthful discourse. And I think that some women need ‘desensitivity’ training to participate in a workplace without being problematic in that truthful discourse. But then, we have ‘sensitivity’ training for men and have had it for years for the same reasons. Both sexes have trouble with personalizing when inappropriate.
    But women in politics as a general rule whether as voters or politicians – despite the extraordinary exceptions all of whom have been conservative (Thatcher, Le Pen, Meloni etc) – has been a catastrophe for us just as it has been in every western government – even Merkel was a disaster despite her popularity.
    Do I want to say this? No. Do I want to advocate it. No. Do I even want to know it? No I do not.
    But it turns out that my job is to speak the truth before face regardless of cost so that we may solve the crises of the age, and hope that those in the future might now repeat them.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-09 18:50:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1943020034923909617

  • Stefan: you ask great questions many of which are controversial to answer. 😉 Mi

    Stefan: you ask great questions many of which are controversial to answer. 😉

    Mine: I prefer to keep women on a pedestal given how beneficial and joyful they have been to and for me. But my understanding of their consequences when unregulated especially in political outcomes has done its best to render my ideal unsustainable. 🙁

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-06 01:01:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1941663731584536694

  • The difference emerges once you discover the categories of advantage and insight

    The difference emerges once you discover the categories of advantage and insight jews and europeans pursue. I’ve studied it in detail and it’ conforms the intelligence, sex, neoteny, and civilizational differences.

    There are many things in the study of mankind that I might prefer not to know in my moral life, that I must in turn accept and know in my intellectual life.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-30 18:27:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1939752609444982917

  • (Diary) Reminded by a young female neighbor: My default behavior is indistinguis

    (Diary)
    Reminded by a young female neighbor:
    My default behavior is indistinguishable from flirting.

    I’m just friendly and gregarious. The chances I’m flirting are very close to zero. I don’t have time. And I’m not interested. 😉

    The power of autism: lack of self awareness. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-24 23:56:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1937661072162586794