Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sex Differences

  • AN ALTERNATIVE TO SOWELL’S THEORY OF THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED The progressive

    AN ALTERNATIVE TO SOWELL’S THEORY OF THE VISION OF THE ANOINTED

    The 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

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 04:46:00 UTC

  • END OF THE PROGRESSIVE ERA – BECAUSE OF SCIENCE AND EVIDENCE The Progressive fan

    END OF THE PROGRESSIVE ERA – BECAUSE OF SCIENCE AND EVIDENCE

    The Progressive fantasy was that reason and speech could overwhelm our and defeat our genes. But all they did was to give license to them – degeneracy.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 02:51:00 UTC

  • TOLERANCE FOR FEMININE NEED FOR MAGIC Is the female need to believe in various k

    TOLERANCE FOR FEMININE NEED FOR MAGIC

    Is the female need to believe in various kinds of magic, superstition, new-age pseudoscience, and religion the men’s equivalent of need for hunting, sports and action movies? That it’s a necessary vent for the uncontrollable and irrational impulses that they cannot separate into ?

    I have enough problems with the SINGULARITY of my mind – it could literally kill me if I didn’t constantly work to control it – and nearly has. We call this category of thinking a ‘horizontal’ problem. But a woman has a similar problem in that they have an equally vertical problem: a zillion ‘windows popping up’ that they simply cannot stop, and giving them an order relieves them of the work of categorizing them rationally.

    I am terribly sympathetic actually. Most men have very ‘quiet’ minds compared to women. Something which many women cannot seem to imagine – how ‘quiet’ our minds are by comparison. They ask “What are you thinking?” and we respond “Nothing”, because in fact, we are thinking of nothing. We evolved to watch the horizon for prey – quietly. Patiently. That is very different from wondering about what children are doing – constantly.

    So I’ve become tolerant of silly chick talk. That they cannot tell that they are aware of breathing patterns in the bus, or patterns of gestures, changes in air pressure, and that they perceive this as magic – to them it is.

    We have similar mental blindness. I always am amazed how ‘dumb’ women are about politics until I remind myself that me and my fellow brothers evolved to keep other males away, to kill other males, and to take their women – and that women by contrast have a slave mind: they will acclimate to whoever is in control since their genes can continue regardless of which males are in charge.

    The left suppressed Darwin more than the right. For good reason. Leftists are weaker and less attractive – less desirable. But they have numbers. Otherwise ‘desirable’ would have no meaning.

    So I have become (recently) much more ‘accepting’ of silly chick talk as nothing more than the equivalent of men talking about sports or politics – it’s a vent.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-16 02:45:00 UTC

  • SPECIALIZATION AND THE REPRODUCTIVE DIVISION OF LABOR

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNg4NpDTxMMORAL SPECIALIZATION AND THE REPRODUCTIVE DIVISION OF LABOR

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 02:55:00 UTC

  • article has become very popular and controversial. 1. Living outside of what you

    http://familyshare.com/marriage/5-ways-you-are-unknowingly-destroying-your-husband-and-killing-your-marriageThis article has become very popular and controversial.

    1. Living outside of what you can afford

    2. Constant negativity (ie: reminding/nagging/advising/helping)

    3. Putting everything else first

    4. Withholding physical affection

    5. Not speaking his language

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-14 06:13:00 UTC

  • Eli: Women’s Sufferage

    Guest Post by Eli Harman

    [M]en and women are different, with different priorities, values, motivations, interests, and reproductive strategies (on average.)

    The family is a compromise between male and female reproductive strategies. It isn’t what either men or women would choose if they had their druthers. (Men would build harems and women would be promiscuous and enlist the aid of the tribe to support their offspring.) But it’s the best either can achieve in compromise with the other.


    Now, democracy, as a structure of government can *only* function as a means of selecting priorities among parties with interests that are aligned (that’s why it works so well for corporations, because shareholders interests are perfectly aligned towards maximization of profit.) Democracy and voting can never ever, never ever, never ever, reconcile conflicting interests. In the case of genuine conflict, it can only determine which interests are to prevail at the expense of which others.
    When it was one family, one vote, democracy worked better, because the conflict between male and female reproductive strategies was resolved within the family, and it never rose to the level of politics.


    Families could use democracy to cooperate with one another on shared interests (although this was not without some conflict already.)


    But when women were enfranchised, and permitted to vote independently from men, this completely unbalanced things. Now the essential conflict between male and female could rise to the level of politics.


    And in this arena, women posses the advantage. In the first place, women are 51% of the electorate, so they possess a simple majority. in the second place, women tend to be more similar, and men more variable, so we might expect women to form a more cohesive voting block. Third, in addition to their own numbers, women can always count on the support of at least some men.


    This has a lot of consequences which it would take a while to explain even in part so I’ll let you follow the logic from there.
    But it does not bode well for western civilization. Female dominated societies are always conquered and subjugated by male dominated ones.

    Eli Harman.

  • Eli: Women’s Sufferage

    Guest Post by Eli Harman

    [M]en and women are different, with different priorities, values, motivations, interests, and reproductive strategies (on average.)

    The family is a compromise between male and female reproductive strategies. It isn’t what either men or women would choose if they had their druthers. (Men would build harems and women would be promiscuous and enlist the aid of the tribe to support their offspring.) But it’s the best either can achieve in compromise with the other.


    Now, democracy, as a structure of government can *only* function as a means of selecting priorities among parties with interests that are aligned (that’s why it works so well for corporations, because shareholders interests are perfectly aligned towards maximization of profit.) Democracy and voting can never ever, never ever, never ever, reconcile conflicting interests. In the case of genuine conflict, it can only determine which interests are to prevail at the expense of which others.
    When it was one family, one vote, democracy worked better, because the conflict between male and female reproductive strategies was resolved within the family, and it never rose to the level of politics.


    Families could use democracy to cooperate with one another on shared interests (although this was not without some conflict already.)


    But when women were enfranchised, and permitted to vote independently from men, this completely unbalanced things. Now the essential conflict between male and female could rise to the level of politics.


    And in this arena, women posses the advantage. In the first place, women are 51% of the electorate, so they possess a simple majority. in the second place, women tend to be more similar, and men more variable, so we might expect women to form a more cohesive voting block. Third, in addition to their own numbers, women can always count on the support of at least some men.


    This has a lot of consequences which it would take a while to explain even in part so I’ll let you follow the logic from there.
    But it does not bode well for western civilization. Female dominated societies are always conquered and subjugated by male dominated ones.

    Eli Harman.

  • We Took The  Family For Granted

    [W]e spend all this time, text and talk on the individual, women, government and economy. But we took the structure of reproduction for granted.

    We compete, using 1) the structure of group competition, 2) the structure of reproduction, 3) structure of pedagogy, 4) structure of production, and 5) structure of commons.

    Liberalism has been nothing more than an exercise in hedonistic consumption at the expense of the civilization that made that consumption possible. We destroyed the family. And with it, our civilization.

    It’s solvable. But it’s going to require blood and treasure to do it.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine



    Johannes Meixner :
    There is no better way of productively reproducing than the nuclear family with two partners both merging assets together, and not separating until the offspring is at least adult (death is preferable).


    Curt Doolittle:
    Yep. Exclusive of formal institutions that is true. Although I could argue that a 2M-person homogenous-polity closed to immigration, with a great deal of government-as-insurer, and without marriage could work if savings were enforced on all parties in greatly expanded version of the Singaporean or Galveston models.

    Johannes Meixner:
    …well if you enjoy risk transfers beyond the top level required to offset moral hazard, you can choose to do that.

  • We Took The  Family For Granted

    [W]e spend all this time, text and talk on the individual, women, government and economy. But we took the structure of reproduction for granted.

    We compete, using 1) the structure of group competition, 2) the structure of reproduction, 3) structure of pedagogy, 4) structure of production, and 5) structure of commons.

    Liberalism has been nothing more than an exercise in hedonistic consumption at the expense of the civilization that made that consumption possible. We destroyed the family. And with it, our civilization.

    It’s solvable. But it’s going to require blood and treasure to do it.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine



    Johannes Meixner :
    There is no better way of productively reproducing than the nuclear family with two partners both merging assets together, and not separating until the offspring is at least adult (death is preferable).


    Curt Doolittle:
    Yep. Exclusive of formal institutions that is true. Although I could argue that a 2M-person homogenous-polity closed to immigration, with a great deal of government-as-insurer, and without marriage could work if savings were enforced on all parties in greatly expanded version of the Singaporean or Galveston models.

    Johannes Meixner:
    …well if you enjoy risk transfers beyond the top level required to offset moral hazard, you can choose to do that.

  • The Ultimate Question of Economic Science? It’s Eugenia or Dysgenia.

    [P]eter Boettke posted an article by Paul Krugman yesterday which referred to the divisions in economics – with derision.

    And it’s been bothering me all night:

    Progressives, libertarians, and conservatives demonstrate an inter-temporal division of reproductive labor in their moral biases and cognitive biases.

    So why wouldn’t economists follow the same moral, inter-temporal division of labor?

    Well, they do. All humans do.

    Austrians represent the conservative long term: accumulation and competitiveness, and new Keynesian progressives the short term: consumption and reproduction.

    The question is whether consumption/dysgenia or accumulation/eugenia is preferable.

    This is the central proposition. And we avoid answering it just as much as our ancestors avoided the question of the existence of gods.

    Until we answer that question all economic debate is just obscurant deception as a means of avoiding the central question of economics: what is it that we are solving for?

    I can answer that question because western history answered it for us.