From Uncle Eli Harman: Woman: “My husband is like one more child…” Me, an Intellectual: “Literally all your faculties evolved to deal with children, so if all you have is a hammer…” ANALYSIS 1) women control 80% of household spending 2) women control 70% of retail spending 3) women control 70% of government resources Men give women their resources and want something for them. Women consume give their children, or give to child substitutes, like pets or ‘the disadvantaged’, those resources. and expect only their own psychological rewards for having done so. The relationship between men and women is not equal.
Theme: Sex Differences
-
So if All You Have Is a Hammer….
From Uncle Eli Harman: Woman: “My husband is like one more child…” Me, an Intellectual: “Literally all your faculties evolved to deal with children, so if all you have is a hammer…” ANALYSIS 1) women control 80% of household spending 2) women control 70% of retail spending 3) women control 70% of government resources Men give women their resources and want something for them. Women consume give their children, or give to child substitutes, like pets or ‘the disadvantaged’, those resources. and expect only their own psychological rewards for having done so. The relationship between men and women is not equal.
-
Writing Characters: Sorry but Yes, Females and Males Speak (very) Differently
Writing Characters: Sorry but Yes, Females and Males Speak (very) Differently. https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/writing-characters-sorry-but-yes-females-and-males-speak-very-differently/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 18:03:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267517214846050304
-
Writing Characters: Sorry but Yes, Females and Males Speak (very) Differently
Writing Characters: Sorry but Yes, Females and Males Speak (very) Differently. https://t.co/rv1VDs6cvu
-
Writing Characters: Sorry but Yes, Females and Males Speak (very) Differently.
And we speak differently whether or not members of the opposite sex are the the room or hearing distance. Both are more reserved in the presence of the opposite sex. So when writing characters, don’t force the audience out of suspension of disbelief. Laurelle asked: —“Why does Cane find it necessary, in a 2009 publication, to include an essay (within the chapter on J.D. Salinger) titled, “How to create female characters that readers remember?” I mean, really.’— Because men are as notoriously bad at creating female characters, as women are at creating men. Dialog that is counter to type (falling out of character) is one of the most common failings of authors, with misgendered speech the most common means of creating cardboard characters. Sensitivity tends to vary between male and female cognition with empathizing minds (dominantly female) tolerating it (not breaking suspension of disbelief), and systematizing minds (dominantly male) not tolerating it (breaking suspension of disbelief). In fact, it’s rather humorous that you even mention this because you’re demonstrating it. The most common demonstrably female cognitive bias is NAXALT (“not all x are like that”) meaning failure to grasp a distribution. Now all of us vary in our distribution of systematizing(autistic extreme) male bias and empathizing (psychotic extreme) female bias and we find masculinely biased females and femininely biased males. But that doesn’t change the fact that while some of us are insensitive (empathic) to patterns of behavior and some of us are extremely sensitive to behavioral patterns (systematizing), that the audience’s (marketplace’s) tolerance (willingness to keep investing time in the author’s work) is unaffected by one’s ability to construct a believable character that meets the target market’s demand for suspension of disbelief. Same is for age, same is for occupation, same is for socio-economic class. Same is for time period. BTW: Stereotypes are the most accurate measurement in the social sciences, for obvious reasons: they’re continually tested empirically every day. Analytic males have the most accurate judgement of groups (patterns of action), and slightly sensitive females have the most accurate judgement of individuals (patterns of empathy(feeling)). This measure averages out at somewhere between .2 and .5. So it isn’t an extreme advantage or disadvantage. But it does matter. ie: If you write a romance novel it doesn’t matter as much as if you write a spy thriller. Hope this is useful for other writers. Cheers.
-
Writing Characters: Sorry but Yes, Females and Males Speak (very) Differently.
And we speak differently whether or not members of the opposite sex are the the room or hearing distance. Both are more reserved in the presence of the opposite sex. So when writing characters, don’t force the audience out of suspension of disbelief. Laurelle asked: —“Why does Cane find it necessary, in a 2009 publication, to include an essay (within the chapter on J.D. Salinger) titled, “How to create female characters that readers remember?” I mean, really.’— Because men are as notoriously bad at creating female characters, as women are at creating men. Dialog that is counter to type (falling out of character) is one of the most common failings of authors, with misgendered speech the most common means of creating cardboard characters. Sensitivity tends to vary between male and female cognition with empathizing minds (dominantly female) tolerating it (not breaking suspension of disbelief), and systematizing minds (dominantly male) not tolerating it (breaking suspension of disbelief). In fact, it’s rather humorous that you even mention this because you’re demonstrating it. The most common demonstrably female cognitive bias is NAXALT (“not all x are like that”) meaning failure to grasp a distribution. Now all of us vary in our distribution of systematizing(autistic extreme) male bias and empathizing (psychotic extreme) female bias and we find masculinely biased females and femininely biased males. But that doesn’t change the fact that while some of us are insensitive (empathic) to patterns of behavior and some of us are extremely sensitive to behavioral patterns (systematizing), that the audience’s (marketplace’s) tolerance (willingness to keep investing time in the author’s work) is unaffected by one’s ability to construct a believable character that meets the target market’s demand for suspension of disbelief. Same is for age, same is for occupation, same is for socio-economic class. Same is for time period. BTW: Stereotypes are the most accurate measurement in the social sciences, for obvious reasons: they’re continually tested empirically every day. Analytic males have the most accurate judgement of groups (patterns of action), and slightly sensitive females have the most accurate judgement of individuals (patterns of empathy(feeling)). This measure averages out at somewhere between .2 and .5. So it isn’t an extreme advantage or disadvantage. But it does matter. ie: If you write a romance novel it doesn’t matter as much as if you write a spy thriller. Hope this is useful for other writers. Cheers.
-
What ‘Traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Be
What ‘Traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Between Genders. https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/what-traditional-means-what-to-say-instead-and-how-to-restore-reciprocity-between-genders-3/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 16:43:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267497110997352451
-
What ‘Traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Be
What ‘Traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Between Genders. https://t.co/EK8i19Htm5
-
What ‘Traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Between Genders.
WHAT ‘TRADITIONAL’ MEANS, WHAT TO SAY INSTEAD, AND HOW TO RESTORE RECIPROCITY BETWEEN GENDERS. Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’) Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.” This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance. Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency. However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency. In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.
-
What ‘Traditional’ Means, What to Say Instead, and How to Restore Reciprocity Between Genders.
WHAT ‘TRADITIONAL’ MEANS, WHAT TO SAY INSTEAD, AND HOW TO RESTORE RECIPROCITY BETWEEN GENDERS. Advice to Libertarian(ideology), Constitutional (rule of law), Right(normative tradition), and Religious(theological tradition): Avoid “Traditional” as it’s indefensible. (FWIW; it means ’empirically successful in pre technological history because of the division of labor necessary under intergenerational agrarianism.’) Better argument is “Biological gender roles constitute the optimum Nash equilibrium under which all of us do the best we can even if none of us or few of us do as well as we’d wish, without imposing irreciprocal hardship upon one another.” This is why we evolved paring off and serial monogamy, and only developed long term monogamy as (a) we lived longer (b) we developed property and productivity and (c) were able to perform intergenerational care in exchange for intergenerational inheritance. Because of the narrower distribution of desirable men, and the wider distribution of desirable women and the increase in the division of labor such that women are freed from manual household labor like men are (largely)freed from manual environmental labor, we can no longer expect postwar rates of marriage, and will return to pre-industrial rates of marriage – preserving it more commonly among the better classes who have greater interests in property and its returns, and the working and laboring classes who possess sufficient in-class sexual social market value, and sufficient conscientiousness and reciprocity, and returning to serial or parallel relations around maternal households living on the edge of self sufficiency. However, we can eliminate ir-reciprocity for MEN in the current era, by (a) ending marriage to the state (redistribution); (b) ending community property, alimony, child support, (c) restore liability for interference in a marriage; (e) restore voluntary disassociation so that men can reform paternal institutions of reciprocal support in lieu of marriage; and (d) forcible savings for retirement that is unattachable by anyone and everyone as insurance by and for the polity from your moral hazard of self insufficiency. In other words, we can restore reciprocal interest in the returns on investment in a partnership, by restoring the disincentive to parasitically live off others permitted by their intuition of reciprocity against moral hazard.