( Sure, you’re average Slavic male looks more than a few cc’s deficient in cranial volume. But damn. The ordinary girl at the bus station is still just amazing. )
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-23 14:52:00 UTC
( Sure, you’re average Slavic male looks more than a few cc’s deficient in cranial volume. But damn. The ordinary girl at the bus station is still just amazing. )
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-23 14:52:00 UTC
Andy Curzon
Just had a thought in response to you question the other day. And I think it’s this: (as a vast overgeneralization )
Women are less willing to pay rational behavioral adaptation costs, and more willing to pay social adaptation costs. The former requires they monitor their thinking and change it, the second means they feel the circumstance and adapt to it without rational demand.
Men however must constantly outwit the hunted, and so readily adapt to facts, regardless of social constraints.
(My ex-wife Allora was one of the few women (and there are quite a few) that are intellectually attached, and sufficiently emotionally detatched such that they can adapt their thinking in response to pure ideas. It’s probably why we were such a devastating team.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-23 06:07:00 UTC
MUST BE A FULL MOON.
(I have a handful of windows open all asking about relationship advice.)
COST
Men are emotinally expensive for women, just like women are economically expensive for men.
CHOICES
Women are not ‘looser’ than they were in the past, only than in the recent past. What they are is more economically indpendent and men are less valuable to them. Moreover we are now forming relationships largely on shared entertainment interests rather than shared economic necessity. So men are less valuable. So what has occurred is that both sexes are using current economic conditions (that are changing rapidly) to be more selective if they have options, and more impulsive if they don’t.
JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU
She’s just not that into you. He’s just not that into you.
Gender doesn’t matter. It works the same, both ways.
You can try as hard as you want. But once you figure out that he or she is not as into you as you are into him or her, you’ve found a pretty serious problem.
Because it will only get worse. Relationships wax and wane. And unless there is enough attraction, the weak parts create easy points of failure. And the person with the lowest interest is the one who will break.
Both women and men excel at wishful thinking.
But you can’t wish people to feel other than they do.
And if you must work hard for their attention, over time, then you will get less and less of it. Not only because they will be less responsive to your desires, but because you will be less willing to work for that attention.
It is what it is.
Relationships are only useful for very short romance, or very long security. The middle ground is always disappointing.
Find someone you want to be with for the long haul.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-21 12:37:00 UTC
INDIVIDUAL MAN THE ANIMAL, WARRIOR MAN THE HUMAN.
Men. You are disposable to women, and disposable to politicians, and disposable to intellectuals.
The only brothers you have, to whom you are not disposable are brothers in arms, the sergeants, captains, and generals who depend upon you. And the generations of warriors before you, and those that may yet follow you if you do not fail.
As individuals only your brothers need you.
As a collection of warriors we are all indispensable to all.
Our value is in our numbers: our brothers in arms.
The natural order of men is the hunter and the warrior – our bourgeoise luxuries and comforts are a privilege of the good life prior warriors have made possible for us.
But just as women abuse this luxury, we do also.
If you will not fight for Liberty, and if you will not join and forever remain a member of the fraternity of generals, warriors, and soldiers then you will eventually pay the cost in life culture and genes of failing to maintain the first commons if men: the initiative brotherhood of warriors from which man arises from animal.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-17 03:04:00 UTC
Political compromise btw gender/class moved from in-family to houses of govt.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-16 20:19:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754410090845831172
Reply addressees: @RonSchweinlach @hbdchick @SteveStuWill @JonHaidt @JonahNRO
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754304775156490240
IN REPLY TO:
@ronmcdouble
@curtdoolittle @hbdchick @SteveStuWill @JonHaidt @JonahNRO whats “not empirical”?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754304775156490240
Intel+low births valuable against opportunistic timidity, not against aggress. impulsivity+hi births w/o scarcity.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-16 10:35:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754263140808925184
Reply addressees: @mfckr_ @YeyoZa @hbdchick
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754260189163905028
IN REPLY TO:
@mfckr_
@curtdoolittle @YeyoZa @hbdchick We likely are evolving in that direction—↑aggression/impulsivity & ↓intelligence are only the tip of
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754260189163905028
TALKATIVE WOMEN ARE AWESOME
I love women who ‘talk too much’. I don’t understand men who want a quiet woman. Women talk about all sorts of nonsense, giggle and laugh a lot, and it’s little of it is important, and it’s like birds singing, or flowers in the room.
Nagging isn’t talking. I mean talking to you, to friends, to everyone.
Possibly because I”m pretty verbal also. But at least for me, I find it wonderful.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-13 04:27:00 UTC
THE BEST WAY TO CULL THE BOTTOM APPEARS TO BE TO LEAVE THEM BEHIND AND MOVE AWAY
—“East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) obtain the highest mean IQ at 105. Europeans follow with an IQ of 100. Some ways below these are the Inuit or Eskimos (IQ 91), South East Asians (IQ 87), Native American Indians (IQ 87), Pacific Islanders (IQ 85), and South Asians and North Africans (IQ 84). Well below these are the sub-Saharan Africans (IQ 67), the Australian Aborigines (IQ 62), the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert, and the Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54).”—
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-09 08:28:00 UTC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_FrogWOMEN, THEY, AND WE SPECIALIZE… SCORPIONS ALL
Women specialize in gossip and wishful thinking. If they did not they would abandon their stupid, ugly, ill-behaved children, and destined for outcast status, in the wood, rather than lie to themselves daily that they’re intelligent, cute, misunderstood, and destined for success.
“They” industrialized gossip and lying to entrap others in wishful thinking. If they did not, they would have been exterminated long ago.
We specialize in truth telling, finance, law, engineering, science. If we did not we would not have dragged ourselves and man out of ignorance, poverty, and disease.
Do you think that Women, “They”, or We, have a choice in our specializations? Or do we follow the whispers of our genes?
I do not hate the scorpion for stinging the frog. I understand that the frog is a fool for expecting the scorpion to act other than his nature.
But we have committed a greater folly than the foolhardiness of the frog: we have committed the sins of arrogance and laziness.
We assumed that we could use and domesticate the scorpion and that we were strong enough corral, contain, and armor ourselves against it.
We were wrong.
There is no end to the suppression of parasitism. Innovation does not constrain itself tot he good. We must be ever vigilant against parasitism by the persistent application of natural law, in manners, ethics, morals, law, institutions, and war.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-09 06:45:00 UTC
(A woman who loves philosophy? OMG. It can’t be true. lol 😉 )
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-07 14:45:00 UTC