Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sex Differences

  • THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CONSPIRACY THAT DOESN’T EXIST The point is that women

    THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE CONSPIRACY THAT DOESN’T EXIST

    The point is that women are just as capable as men and the data is overwhelming. However the statistical disparities are not the result of bias but of the distribution of talents and preferences between the genders.

    So my point was that no one is biased against female CEOs. And no one is biased against short CEOs. There are just a lot of tall capable men and humans like big strong smart men as their leaders.

    I can post all day that men and women are equally productive in the work force. Or that women assimilate into organizations more easily than men. Or that they mature earlier and have longer possible working lives than men. Or that women dominate the middle. And that women improve working conditions.

    But the moment I bring up that up here in the high iq range women don’t want to engage in constant combat, prefer to work relationships rather than abstract data, or that men up here outnumber women by an order of magnitude, or that women are less likely to take career risk in loyalty structures, the crazies come out of the woodwork.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-20 10:00:00 UTC

  • SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENE AND MAKE ME A FORTUNE 500 CEO? Feminists are abs

    SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENE AND MAKE ME A FORTUNE 500 CEO?

    Feminists are absurd. Now, here is the data. CEO’s of large companies are (a) really smart, and (b) tall. Now, there is a correlation between height and brain size which correlates with intelligence. But also, the very primitive power that superior height conveys is tangible, and measurable.

    Does that mean that the government should redistribute CEO positions from tall people to short people?

    Then why should we redistribute CEO positions (or any position in society) from socially superior people to socially inferior people?

    I have no problem with the fact that I can never play basketball well, and that in both soccer and volleyball I am working at a disadvantage. I have no problem that in business I am working at a disadvantage. I have no problem that even in the pursuit of desirable women that I am at a disadvantage. These are disadvantages. But I cannot comprehend wanting others to sacrifice the maximum that they can achieve in life to compensate for my disadvantage.

    Yet feminists will argue the opposite day in and day out. The fact is that women work fewer hours, are less willing to make economic sacrifices, less willing to take economic risks, are less loyal to internal political networks, and are vastly outnumbered at both the top and bottom of the intelligence and aggressive impulsivity scales.

    Just as I cannot possibly sense but 1/100’th of what an average women can about any other human being she encounters in the first fifteen seconds, I understand that nearly all women on earth, cannot make political assessments in the same short time frame.

    We are compatible. But we are not equal. And group competition requires we make the best use of our best, because everyone else is merely a commodity.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-20 05:13:00 UTC

  • ON MALES AND POSITIVES STRESS (from elsewhere) A conversation with a female frie

    ON MALES AND POSITIVES STRESS

    (from elsewhere)

    A conversation with a female friend and ballet dancer. Who like many women recommend Yoga or some variation.

    –“hmmm….. You know, it’s sort of like Yoga.

    I’m a man. I can’t ‘hear’ my body – much at all. Not like a woman can. So I don’t get the ‘feelings’ that you would get from these kind of female-enjoyable activities unless there is a lot of motion involved.

    Dancing works, fencing works, running fast works, sports work, and lifting really ‘heavy’ weights with full body motion works.

    But honestly, if you can imagine the lack of stimuli in a sensory deprivation chamber, then that’s what it’s like for me to do any ‘subtle’ form of exercise. It’s literally emotionally painful.

    I have to experience ‘stress’ to feel that ‘calm’ that most women (and beta males) get out of yoga or tai-chee or anything similar. Physical and mental “Stress” without “threat” is my version of physical ‘peace’.

    I wish I could have learned how to express that earlier in my life. I should probably write something on the subject so that other men have the words to express how they feel in rational terms. Because this is the problem for a lot of men.

    Our bodies love stress. We even love threats. We just don’t want threats with meaningful consequences. That is why men like to play ports. And video games. Physical and mental stress without the danger of physical consequences.

    When we can have 3d video games that require full body motion, and where we can run around and safely play ‘war’ from within the safety of our homes, then men will be rescued from the physical and mental harm of post industrial society.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-17 04:21:00 UTC

  • Don Finnegan, Tim Koelkebeck Is there any useful work on MBTI / Jung on politica

    Don Finnegan, Tim Koelkebeck Is there any useful work on MBTI / Jung on political affiliation? It’s clear that there are some predominantly masculine and feminine personality types. I don’t want to express these things as political affiliations but as the moral bias that determines political affiliations. In other words, I want to capture the intersection between Jungian grid, and Haidt’s foundations. I am trying at the moment to figure out how to represent Haidt’s work on a coercive triangle (matching my other work – weapons of influence.)

    ie: If I reorganize the MBTI grid can I reflect the weapons of influence – gender strategy? I can intuit that this MUST be true, but I don’t see it off the top of my head.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-12 05:49:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANISM = MASCULINITY = AUTISTIC SPECTRUM —“The researchers found that

    LIBERTARIANISM = MASCULINITY = AUTISTIC SPECTRUM

    —“The researchers found that libertarians had the most “masculine” psychological profile, while liberals had the most feminine, and these results held up even when they examined each gender separately, which “may explain why libertarianism appeals to men more than women.”—

    Libertarians are rational. Because we’re less feminine. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-12 04:20:00 UTC

  • Social science experiment: Ask a few random women their opinion on an uncomforta

    Social science experiment:

    Ask a few random women their opinion on an uncomfortable truth.

    On a scale of:

    1-Shaming and rallying

    2-Shaming.

    3-Displeased.

    4-Denial.

    5-Excuse making.

    6-Uncomfortable agreement

    7-Tacit agreement.

    8-Factual acknowledgement

    9-Positive affirmation

    10-Elaborates upon it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-09 05:35:00 UTC

  • “GENDER DIFFERENCES” READING LIST THE ANATOMY OF LOVE by Fisher WHY WE LOVE by F

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0449908976THE “GENDER DIFFERENCES” READING LIST

    THE ANATOMY OF LOVE by Fisher

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0449908976

    WHY WE LOVE by Fisher

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805077960

    A NATURAL HISTORY OF LOVE by Ackerman

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679761837/

    THE ART OF LOVE by Ovid

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375761179/

    THE RED QUEEN by Ridley

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060556579/

    DEMONIC MALES by Petersen

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0395877431

    THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE by Baron-Cohen

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046500556X/

    FEMINISM AND FREEDOM (its genetic) by Levin

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0887381251/

    WHY MEN RULE by Goldberg

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812692373/

    THE INEVITABILITY OF PATRIARCHY

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688001750/

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-06 15:59:00 UTC

  • “UNAPOLOGETIC LIVING”– Masculinity for the 21st century. No more apologies. For

    –“UNAPOLOGETIC LIVING”–

    Masculinity for the 21st century.

    No more apologies.

    For anything.

    It was messy dragging the world out of ignorance and poverty.

    Yeah, we could have done a better job at it for sure.

    But the fact is, that from Burke forward, we did it.

    So I don’t apologize.

    Sorry.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-06 10:51:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARDIANS AS FEMINIST CONSPIRATORS – THE PHILOSOPHY OF BETAS. It’s true that

    ROTHBARDIANS AS FEMINIST CONSPIRATORS – THE PHILOSOPHY OF BETAS.

    It’s true that rothbardians have constructed an elaborate system of justification, and a set of arguments to advance that justification. It is only that your argument requires belief and normative adoption. It’s a cult. And that cult has failed. Because only socially dysfunctional people are capable of holding that belief. And only with such an elaborately justified edifice to maintain that belief.

    Instead I am suggesting a social science that fully explains all political systems as evolutionary and competitive strategies, and that all belief is justification, while this particular science is an explanation.

    I choose aristocratic egalitarianism because I do not have to be socially dysfunctional, adopt a belief, suspend disbelief, or engage in justification. I must only observe and acknowledge man as he demonstrates himself, and understand which institutions are necessary to provide the incentives to produce Liberty – while suppressing all free riding, and therefore both demand for the State and ability to construct a state.

    You in the other hand require the fantasy – the fallacy – that ghetto ethics constitute a rational choice. They don’t. Which is why people won’t adopt them.

    No one wants jews and gypsies. We murdered Jews and gypsies. We are getting close to the same with Muslims. We didn’t try to imitate them. That would be to devolve our civilization. We conquered, ostracized, oppressed and killed them. Justifiably. Necessarily. Usefully. Even if immorally. What is remarkable is that unlike all other civilisations we are tolerant enough not to exterminate them. The reason we are tolerant is that we obtain status signals from maintaining their inferiority.

    No one wants low trust people’s. All lower trust people’s that one can possibly defend against, must be conquered, converted, oppressed, or killed. If not, in ghettos, whether real or virtual, we can keep low trust people as useful pets, and cheap status signals that remind us our our higher station, our superior civilization, and our superior ethics, morality, and institutions.

    Unfortunately, women have entered the political domain under open enfranchisement, and have not had to earn their enfranchisement through demonstrating good judgement. And have, therefore, devolved our society rapidly, by undermining the means of suppressing unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior, because women practice, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior in order to advance themselves and their offspring regardless of their merit.

    (wow. I think that’s about as offensively direct as I currently know how to construct the argument. lol )

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-06 09:52:00 UTC

  • PAINFUL REALIZATION: THE FAMILY AND PROPERTY RIGHTS I’ve been wrestling with thi

    PAINFUL REALIZATION: THE FAMILY AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

    I’ve been wrestling with this problem for a few days now. That is, that :

    (a) While intuited morality corresponds to the atomicity of the family structure;

    (b) AND therefore determines demand for the state (authority to resolve conflict, prevent conflict, or prevent retaliation);

    (c) AND only the absolute nuclear family can EVOLVE individual property rights, and liberty,

    (d) AND the absolute nuclear family, as normative and legal, is fragile, and subject to conquest by more familial, tribal, national, and religious organizations;

    (e) AND absolute nuclear families facilitate easier movement of human resources to capital (rather than moving capital to resources);

    That does not mean that:

    (f) An aristocratic, familial and tribal society cannot adopt legal individual property rights, and institute formally in law, and therefore in norm, total suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions.

    (g) And therefore eliminate the need for absolute nuclear and nuclear families, thereby returning to aristocratic families.

    (h) Furthermore, that only it is only by violation of rights by the formal institution of immoral and conspiratorial actions, that aristocratic families (natural aristocracy over 3+ generations) are exterminated by competitors.

    Therefore,

    (i) It is possible to possess both aristocratic families, outlaw persecution of aristocratic families, (inheritance taxes, etc, income taxes for the purpose of redistribution), and individual high trust property rights.

    (j) In fact, since violation of the family is a violation of moral and conspiratorial property rights, then of necessity, one cannot suppress the aristocratic families and yet preserve property rights.

    THEREFORE

    (k) The enlightenment era, particularly the cosmopolitan enlightenment (socialism, libertinism, and neo-conservatism) is a war on the exceptional families by the unexceptional families.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-02 11:54:00 UTC