Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sex Differences

  • WANT TO BE DESIRED “1. For women, the number of sexual partners decreases with i

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/02/12/hookinguprealities/the-most-attractive-women-have-the-least-casual-sex/WE WANT TO BE DESIRED

    “1. For women, the number of sexual partners decreases with increasing physical attractiveness.

    “2. Very physically attractive women are more likely to form exclusive relationships than to form purely sexual relationships.

    “3. Attractive women are less likely to have sexual intercourse within the first week of meeting a partner.

    “4. Underweight and normal-weight women are more likely to report romantic experience.

    “5. Overweight women report approximately 10% more partners than normal-weight women whereas obese women report approximately 10% fewer partners.

    “6. For women the effect of being underweight on within-relationship outcomes resembles the effect of being very physically attractive.”

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-15 03:06:00 UTC

  • Census Bureau Statistics – Cities Where Women Out Earn Men – Gender Wage Gap Pay

    http://1.usa.gov/1BjLXIZUS Census Bureau Statistics – http://1.usa.gov/1BjLXIZ

    Cities Where Women Out Earn Men – http://on.wsj.com/1FQTJ18

    Gender Wage Gap Pay Scales – http://bit.ly/1KGcrIw

    How Life Choices Impact Earnings – http://bit.ly/1KGcvrN

    Men are More Likely to Work 40+ Hour Weeks – http://bit.ly/1u2bvcP

    Women More Likely to Take Time Off – http://pewrsr.ch/1C31P04

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-04 19:19:00 UTC

  • but fun article with some stats that suggest we have far less sex than we say th

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/opinion/sunday/seth-stephens-davidowitz-searching-for-sex.htmlWeak but fun article with some stats that suggest we have far less sex than we say that we do.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-25 12:04:00 UTC

  • The older I get, the more obvious is the degree to which women adapt to circumst

    The older I get, the more obvious is the degree to which women adapt to circumstances, and men do not. Men are hard-coded by about 15 or 16, even if we don’t mentally complete our maturity until 22, 32, or even 40. We just decrease in energy level from that point onward. Women are not damaged in utero, so they start out with an advantage, and mature by their early teens – at the expense of a more integrated mind, and less ability to escape its multitude of impulses. But to find happiness in acceptance in a cooperative group, women will adapt to all sorts of environments. Which is why they can survive in the workplace so much longer under perishable patterns of production (switching jobs). I am sure to women it frustrates them that the higher regions are so predominantly, if not exclusively male. But that is because we are specialists. Everything we do goes toward narrower set of ends. That is not the case for women. But conversely, for two-thirds of men, modernity is painful because it changes, and they cannot adapt as do women. Civilization is much better for women than for men. Most of us are happy with pickup trucks, guns, some food, some guys to fight, and some friends to fight other guys with. That is our natural state. 🙂 And we have to be trained out of it by the use of substitutes.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-24 06:28:00 UTC

  • seek the role of breadwinner. Seek personal fulfilment and experience. :). Is th

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/01/01/how-to-close-the-gender-pay-gap-once-and-for-all/Don’t seek the role of breadwinner. Seek personal fulfilment and experience. :).

    Is there anything truly better than living with other men and spending your free time enjoying the world? 😉

    Genocide.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-03 09:00:00 UTC

  • IN JAPAN – THE LACK OF IT – AND LACK OF OFFSPRING BECAUSE OF IT A problem of sma

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/22/japans-sexual-apathy-is-endangering-the-global-economy/?tid=trending_strip_1SEX IN JAPAN – THE LACK OF IT – AND LACK OF OFFSPRING BECAUSE OF IT

    A problem of smart people with low testosterone.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-26 03:09:00 UTC

  • RACE, DISTRIBUTIONS AND RATES OF REPRODUCTION Distributions: Its like the race t

    RACE, DISTRIBUTIONS AND RATES OF REPRODUCTION

    Distributions: Its like the race thing. The difference in average performance is determined by the distributions. And the ‘superiority’ of any group in one aspect or another is almost entirely a reflection of how good they have been at suppressing the reproduction of their underclasses. Which means circumpolar people could let lower classes die off more easily because of winters than other groups, while people from temperate climates could not. The caloric requirement for winter, not just in food, but in physical assets necessary for survival, is very different from the caloric requirement for the sun belt. As such remaining peoples in each tribe benefit from, or experience discrimination from, being identified by the demonstrated behavioral mean of their group. The more die-off you have from the lower classes the more your numbers skew and the better you will be treated as a candidate by others. Once that is in place, the higher the trust you demonstrate the better you will be treated as a candidate as well. Whites, at least in the middle ages, and Jews throughout time, had a lot of die off, and successful assortative mating. Whites now protect jews out of status and guilt. Simple. So you trade suppression of reproduction of your underclasses for material advantage for all members of your group, because you can develop higher trust norms, and a better ‘brand’. You can also not do so. I assume everyone wants a high trust society and this is a false assumption.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-24 07:01:00 UTC

  • HUMANS ARE THE MOST UNEQUAL CREATURES ON EARTH (interesting) HUMANS divide (a)Pe

    HUMANS ARE THE MOST UNEQUAL CREATURES ON EARTH

    (interesting)

    HUMANS divide (a)Perception, (b)Consideration, (c)Knowledge, (d)Labor, and (e) reproduction – and we negotiate through words and provide ‘facts’ or ‘data’ through acts of voluntary exchange.

    We operate as a fascinating computational system. Just as a transistor flips to make a connection that was not previously available, and signals downstream its change in state, we signal through voluntary exchange our change in state, and in doing so we capture and distribute information about our perceptions.

    We were cognizant of the division of reproductive labor, overly obsessed with the division of labor once we discovered it, and only in the past few generations have come to understand the importance of the division of knowledge determined by intellectual ability, and now we have begun to understand the division of perception and consideration is also genetically determined.

    We got stock in the error of equality. Yet, we are perhaps one of the most unequal, if not THE MOST UNEQUAL creatures in existence – because we have greater capacity for inequality.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev,

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-18 03:14:00 UTC

  • An Alternative Biological Theory, to Sowell’s of The Vision of The Anointed

    [T]he progressive pre-cognitive need for false consensus bias confuses them into thinking that everyone else is likewise as susceptible to false consensus bias. But that is a female genetic ‘defect’ – an adaptation necessary for primitive survival, and one that evolved in concert with ‘gossip’, which is meant to appeal to (take advantage of) false consensus bias. Secondly, need for consensus (feeling part) that drives false consensus bias, and the impulse to use gossip as an exertion of power, are amplified by the status signaling that we obtain from achievement of that power (and negative that we get from seeing our efforts frustrated).


    I think this is a superior, simpler theory of causation over Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed. It is one thing (and he is right) to describe their point of view. But it is another to describe why they should be so constantly drawn that point of view.


    In case my meaning is not clear: I am on message. We humans can make use of voluntary exchange as our information system, and we cannot aggregate our preferences by any other means that corresponds to material reality – in particular we cannot claim rational political or moral opinion except as demonstrations of our individual genetic biases.


    We are far less rational than we think. Democracy cannot work as other than despotism of the underclasses leading to tyranny of an elite. The only possible moral government is one that is analogous to the market, in which both collect information and conduct exchanges. And the groups that must conduct those exchanges are those who have common interests in the production of commons: genders, classes and tribes.


    We were mistaken. We confused the fact that while laws must be made for the individual actor, but commons must be made for the family regardless of class. But when the family is the minority, and individuals express genetic interests not inside the family, but by voting, we ended the ability of the democratic government to conduct exchanges between families of different wealth (class), and set loose our genetic interests in a ‘brawl’ that is played out in words, over very long periods. But it is nothing but a genetic brawl. It is a slow cascade of violence not cooperative exchange.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev Ukraine


  • An Alternative Biological Theory, to Sowell’s of The Vision of The Anointed

    [T]he progressive pre-cognitive need for false consensus bias confuses them into thinking that everyone else is likewise as susceptible to false consensus bias. But that is a female genetic ‘defect’ – an adaptation necessary for primitive survival, and one that evolved in concert with ‘gossip’, which is meant to appeal to (take advantage of) false consensus bias. Secondly, need for consensus (feeling part) that drives false consensus bias, and the impulse to use gossip as an exertion of power, are amplified by the status signaling that we obtain from achievement of that power (and negative that we get from seeing our efforts frustrated).


    I think this is a superior, simpler theory of causation over Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed. It is one thing (and he is right) to describe their point of view. But it is another to describe why they should be so constantly drawn that point of view.


    In case my meaning is not clear: I am on message. We humans can make use of voluntary exchange as our information system, and we cannot aggregate our preferences by any other means that corresponds to material reality – in particular we cannot claim rational political or moral opinion except as demonstrations of our individual genetic biases.


    We are far less rational than we think. Democracy cannot work as other than despotism of the underclasses leading to tyranny of an elite. The only possible moral government is one that is analogous to the market, in which both collect information and conduct exchanges. And the groups that must conduct those exchanges are those who have common interests in the production of commons: genders, classes and tribes.


    We were mistaken. We confused the fact that while laws must be made for the individual actor, but commons must be made for the family regardless of class. But when the family is the minority, and individuals express genetic interests not inside the family, but by voting, we ended the ability of the democratic government to conduct exchanges between families of different wealth (class), and set loose our genetic interests in a ‘brawl’ that is played out in words, over very long periods. But it is nothing but a genetic brawl. It is a slow cascade of violence not cooperative exchange.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev Ukraine