Theme: Sex Differences

  • Watch what women do not what they say. What they say merely signals conformity t

    Watch what women do not what they say. What they say merely signals conformity to her group. What they do is consistent regardless of what they say. AFAIK current relationship issues are due to desocialization of males and insulation of females from male adversarialism.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-10 22:05:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1292945089371746304

    Reply addressees: @Zen_niks @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1292933086745726976

  • Watch what women do not what they say. What they say merely signals conformity t

    Watch what women do not what they say. What they say merely signals conformity to her group. What they do is consistent regardless of what they say. AFAIK current relationship issues are due to desocialization of males and insulation of females from male adversarialism.

    Reply addressees: @Zen_niks @DegenRolf

  • Noticeable not meaningful (a) Women are treated with privilege, are coddled and

    Noticeable not meaningful
    (a) Women are treated with privilege, are coddled and receive much more attention. M->F feeds attention demands.
    (b) Women are unconscious of how ‘disposably’ men are treated (by both). F->M may increase credibility but at cost of attention and coddling.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-10 17:56:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1292882522364350465

    Reply addressees: @DegenRolf

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1292843928278970377

  • Noticeable not meaningful (a) Women are treated with privilege, are coddled and

    Noticeable not meaningful
    (a) Women are treated with privilege, are coddled and receive much more attention. M->F feeds attention demands.
    (b) Women are unconscious of how ‘disposably’ men are treated (by both). F->M may increase credibility but at cost of attention and coddling.

    Reply addressees: @DegenRolf

  • It’s Not Clear Funding Instincts is Good for Us

    –“Replicating past research, the study showed that higher levels of gender equality were associated with larger differences in personality between the sexes.”—

    [T]his is again, politically manipulative. The correct answer is that wealth and freedom to pursue instincts produces investigation of, development of expertise in, and specializtion in those instincts.

    That pursuit of instincts produces competing factions in the short term, OR produces speciation in the long term, OR both: competing factions, AND speciation (This is my understanding.).

    This evidence leads to the opposite possible interpretation: (a) that following of instincts is somehow ‘good’, when most of civilizaation consists of institutions both normative and informal and institutional and formal for domesticating instincts, and (b) that we are failing integration into civilization in favor of instincts that evolved prior to civilization and lead to de-civilization.

    In ther words, are we are funding selfishness. My present understanding is that compromises are necessary where they are necessary. And again,that homogenous ethonicentric people can tolerate instinctual specialization, but as diversity increases we cannot.

    —“Countries with very high levels of gender equality, such as Sweden and Norway, showed differences in personality between the sexes that were around twice as large as countries with substantially lower levels of gender equality, such as China and Malaysia.

    Furthermore, women generally rated themselves as more worried (neuroticism), social (extraversion), inquisitive (openness), caring (agreeableness) and responsible (conscientiousness) than men, and these relative differences were larger in gender equal countries.

    “Insofar as these traits can be classified as stereotypically feminine, our interpretation of the data is that as countries become more progressive men and women gravitate towards their traditional gender norms. But, we really don’t know why it is like this, and sadly our data does not let us tease out the causal explanations,” says Erik Mac Giolla, Ph.D. in Psychology”—

  • It’s Not Clear Funding Instincts is Good for Us

    –“Replicating past research, the study showed that higher levels of gender equality were associated with larger differences in personality between the sexes.”—

    [T]his is again, politically manipulative. The correct answer is that wealth and freedom to pursue instincts produces investigation of, development of expertise in, and specializtion in those instincts.

    That pursuit of instincts produces competing factions in the short term, OR produces speciation in the long term, OR both: competing factions, AND speciation (This is my understanding.).

    This evidence leads to the opposite possible interpretation: (a) that following of instincts is somehow ‘good’, when most of civilizaation consists of institutions both normative and informal and institutional and formal for domesticating instincts, and (b) that we are failing integration into civilization in favor of instincts that evolved prior to civilization and lead to de-civilization.

    In ther words, are we are funding selfishness. My present understanding is that compromises are necessary where they are necessary. And again,that homogenous ethonicentric people can tolerate instinctual specialization, but as diversity increases we cannot.

    —“Countries with very high levels of gender equality, such as Sweden and Norway, showed differences in personality between the sexes that were around twice as large as countries with substantially lower levels of gender equality, such as China and Malaysia.

    Furthermore, women generally rated themselves as more worried (neuroticism), social (extraversion), inquisitive (openness), caring (agreeableness) and responsible (conscientiousness) than men, and these relative differences were larger in gender equal countries.

    “Insofar as these traits can be classified as stereotypically feminine, our interpretation of the data is that as countries become more progressive men and women gravitate towards their traditional gender norms. But, we really don’t know why it is like this, and sadly our data does not let us tease out the causal explanations,” says Erik Mac Giolla, Ph.D. in Psychology”—

  • So instead of trying to (female strategy) maximize the homogenity of the herd, w

    So instead of trying to (female strategy) maximize the homogenity of the herd, we (male strategy) maximize the range of adaptivity of various packs.

    This is what the genetic record says we’ve been doing – particularly over the past 11k years.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-07 19:44:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1291822562406785026

    Reply addressees: @RealityRelate @DeltaSchmitt @Rick_Taylor19

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1291821622878441475


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @RealityRelate @DeltaSchmitt @Rick_Taylor19 That’s interesting. Now. In the religious world, everyone is equal. What if (a) there is no such person, (b) instead, we divide reproduction like mammals, but perception like say, ants or bees? So that all we have to work with is a division of perception, cognition, and labor?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1291821622878441475

  • So instead of trying to (female strategy) maximize the homogenity of the herd, w

    So instead of trying to (female strategy) maximize the homogenity of the herd, we (male strategy) maximize the range of adaptivity of various packs.

    This is what the genetic record says we’ve been doing – particularly over the past 11k years.

    Reply addressees: @RealityRelate @DeltaSchmitt @Rick_Taylor19

  • That’s interesting. Now. In the religious world, everyone is equal. What if (a)

    That’s interesting. Now. In the religious world, everyone is equal. What if (a) there is no such person, (b) instead, we divide reproduction like mammals, but perception like say, ants or bees? So that all we have to work with is a division of perception, cognition, and labor?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-07 19:40:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1291821622878441475

    Reply addressees: @RealityRelate @DeltaSchmitt @Rick_Taylor19

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1291814463889387521

  • That’s interesting. Now. In the religious world, everyone is equal. What if (a)

    That’s interesting. Now. In the religious world, everyone is equal. What if (a) there is no such person, (b) instead, we divide reproduction like mammals, but perception like say, ants or bees? So that all we have to work with is a division of perception, cognition, and labor?

    Reply addressees: @RealityRelate @DeltaSchmitt @Rick_Taylor19