http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/04/11/if_he_looks_stupid_he_probably_is_108592.html?fb_action_ids=678685832192328&fb_action_types=og.likesJust how it is.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-16 19:09:00 UTC
Theme: Sex Differences
-
Works both ways. Make a woman feel safe by providing whatever it is that makes h
Works both ways. Make a woman feel safe by providing whatever it is that makes her feel safe. Make a man feel valued by whatever means he needs to feel valued.
Thats about all I can figure out. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-12 07:19:00 UTC
-
GENDER RELATIONS : OFFSPRING VS TRIBES Women are more comfortable with free ridi
GENDER RELATIONS : OFFSPRING VS TRIBES
Women are more comfortable with free riding and with charity, and men are extremely conservative about resources. Women happily sacrifice for their children. Men cautiously sacrifice for their tribe. Women advocate for their children regardless of their merits, while men are more parsimonious because they desire the strongest tribe. For men, a woman and his children are just the smallest possible tribe that he can lead. For a woman, it is very risky, especially in the ignorance of youth, to choose just one man upon which to risk her future.
While men cannot articulate this set of intuitions and strategies, women often confuse the difference in evolutionary strategies between men and women. And particularly the difference between a woman’s offspring, and a man’s tribe.
I’ve seen so many marriages where the woman expects the man to have the same interest toward her and the children, as she has. And there are some men who approach a woman’s sacrifice. But for the majority of us, it is a very bad investment. And with the state making it impossible for us to save for retirement, given our shorter productive life spans, and greater specialization, and greater variation – it’s now an extremely bad idea to engage in marriage.
Marriage is an artificial construct. For a man, he is best off if he trades productivity (no longer protection) and affection for as many women as he can get attention from. And a woman’s best interest is to form a group with other women and select from different men what she wants and needs. This is how we evolved: everyone having sex with everyone else – some of which was for bond building, and some of which was for the purpose of reproduction.
Any society that does not maintain at least the nuclear family will be dominated an exterminated by those that do.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-09 08:05:00 UTC
-
While Paternalism (headmanship) has been universal, when insurance and gathering
While Paternalism (headmanship) has been universal, when insurance and gathering were more important than productivity and warfare, matrilinealism seemed to determine what limited property was important (relations) and what inheritance and therefore ownership. But when productivity became more important than insurance, patrilinealism seemed to develop into the primary social order determining what increasingly complex property was important (livestock, territory, agrarian production, built capital). Now that women can seek rents via the state, we are seeing property return to communalism and men attempt to preserve their control over it.
Without families, I do not yet understand how civilization can function any more than I can understand how an economy can function without prices and incentives.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-07 08:40:00 UTC
-
A Better And More Logical Libertarian Answer
(controversy warning) (reposed from original site) [I] would argue that the gay community successfully suppressed the visibility of its promiscuous behavior once the chance for enfranchisement became possible. Furthermore the leadership changed the message from a request for tolerance of public promiscuity to one in favor of equal rights, marriage and stability. With the genetic, or at least in-utero cause of homosexuality identified, the idea of putting youth at risk disappeared – leaving only the problem of promiscuous behavior. [T]he purpose of boycotting is to suppress undesirable behavior in favor of beneficial norms. Marriage is one of our most unnatural states, but most beneficial norms. In fact our moral codes are dependent, first and foremost, upon our family structures – which is why different family structures cannot politically cooperate. Different family structures means different property rights and different demands for state intervention. Since it was promiscuity that violated norms, and the general fear of further attacks on the family that mainly drove resistance, then BOYCOTTING WORKED. That’s important to grasp. BOYCOTTING WORKED BETTER than libertarian universal particularism. WE WERE WERONG. [C]onservatives are right on norms, and we are not. Cosmopolitan (rothbardian) ethics cannot compete against traditional familial ethics. They can only undermine the hight trust society and require that we return to totalitarianism. Freedom requires homogenous ethics. Heterogeneity simply increases the necessary demand for teh state. BOYCOTTING is a necessary device for enforcing the heterogeneity of norms that make the high trust society, and low demand for state intervention possible. That’s just how it is. Period. This isn’t a preference. It’s a logical necessity.
-
A Better And More Logical Libertarian Answer
(controversy warning) (reposed from original site) [I] would argue that the gay community successfully suppressed the visibility of its promiscuous behavior once the chance for enfranchisement became possible. Furthermore the leadership changed the message from a request for tolerance of public promiscuity to one in favor of equal rights, marriage and stability. With the genetic, or at least in-utero cause of homosexuality identified, the idea of putting youth at risk disappeared – leaving only the problem of promiscuous behavior. [T]he purpose of boycotting is to suppress undesirable behavior in favor of beneficial norms. Marriage is one of our most unnatural states, but most beneficial norms. In fact our moral codes are dependent, first and foremost, upon our family structures – which is why different family structures cannot politically cooperate. Different family structures means different property rights and different demands for state intervention. Since it was promiscuity that violated norms, and the general fear of further attacks on the family that mainly drove resistance, then BOYCOTTING WORKED. That’s important to grasp. BOYCOTTING WORKED BETTER than libertarian universal particularism. WE WERE WERONG. [C]onservatives are right on norms, and we are not. Cosmopolitan (rothbardian) ethics cannot compete against traditional familial ethics. They can only undermine the hight trust society and require that we return to totalitarianism. Freedom requires homogenous ethics. Heterogeneity simply increases the necessary demand for teh state. BOYCOTTING is a necessary device for enforcing the heterogeneity of norms that make the high trust society, and low demand for state intervention possible. That’s just how it is. Period. This isn’t a preference. It’s a logical necessity.
-
UNIVERSAL TRUTHS The adorably silly way women walk with freshly painted toenails
UNIVERSAL TRUTHS
The adorably silly way women walk with freshly painted toenails. In every culture I’ve seen. From heel-walking to elaborate tissue paper rituals.
Like aliens. Only better. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-22 15:01:00 UTC
-
GOOD WRITING : GOOD READ FOR ETHICAL SUPERGEEKS
http://www.analyticalfreedom.com/why-sex-invalidates-interventionism/EXTREMELY GOOD WRITING : GOOD READ FOR ETHICAL SUPERGEEKS
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-12 18:13:00 UTC
-
OF SEX AND MARRIAGE – SPOT ON (worth watching) (thanks Jacob)
http://policymic.com/articles/82899/this-animated-video-shows-the-wild-economics-of-sexECONOMICS OF SEX AND MARRIAGE – SPOT ON
(worth watching)
(thanks Jacob)
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-02 13:48:00 UTC
-
DISPOSABLE MALE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bATHE DISPOSABLE MALE
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-01 17:33:00 UTC