“GSRRM” RESPONSE
—“f–cking madness…”—@meta_slayer
It’s genius actually. It’s describing the female conflcit strategy of undermining truth plus the abrahamic sophism of false promise, baiting in to hazard, profiting from that hazard, and defending it with pilpul, critique, & pretense of innocence under cover of voluntary choice. I don’t make errors. Ever. It’s my job not to.
THE ECONOMICS OF DATING AFAIK, both women and men want to obtain a premium, but a premium they can afford (not lose their investment); Women want to insure they attract the majority of attention in the relationship (are consumers of attention), or that through a relationship they increase their attention. Attention provides discounts on access to social opportunity – particularly for status signaling and verbal coercion. So, women seek an equilibrium under which they increase access to in-group social opportunity, have the resources to do so, but are able to control the source of resources, through control of attention. Men with money garner attention, put men in an advantageous position in relation to the woman, and increase women’s competition. Women want to buy with attention, words, and affection (low cost). Men want to buy with resources (high cost). The problem is women’s attention is scarce, and desirable, so it’s costly. There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy that is not readily expressible in economic terms – emotions and intuitions are nothing more than evolution providing us with information on how to acquire some sort of resource discounting our costs. Any theory in metaphysics, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy must be constructable from rational incentives to acquire some sort of discount or premium, or the theory is false. It’s no different from any other of the logics: all logic is falsificationary. The principle problem facing the transformation of linguistic (metaphysical), psychological,social, legal, political, economic, and military disciplines is a failure to adopt the full accounting in those disciplines using economic equilibration = entropy in the physical sciences.
THE ECONOMICS OF DATING AFAIK, both women and men want to obtain a premium, but a premium they can afford (not lose their investment); Women want to insure they attract the majority of attention in the relationship (are consumers of attention), or that through a relationship they increase their attention. Attention provides discounts on access to social opportunity – particularly for status signaling and verbal coercion. So, women seek an equilibrium under which they increase access to in-group social opportunity, have the resources to do so, but are able to control the source of resources, through control of attention. Men with money garner attention, put men in an advantageous position in relation to the woman, and increase women’s competition. Women want to buy with attention, words, and affection (low cost). Men want to buy with resources (high cost). The problem is women’s attention is scarce, and desirable, so it’s costly. There is nothing in psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy that is not readily expressible in economic terms – emotions and intuitions are nothing more than evolution providing us with information on how to acquire some sort of resource discounting our costs. Any theory in metaphysics, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, or group strategy must be constructable from rational incentives to acquire some sort of discount or premium, or the theory is false. It’s no different from any other of the logics: all logic is falsificationary. The principle problem facing the transformation of linguistic (metaphysical), psychological,social, legal, political, economic, and military disciplines is a failure to adopt the full accounting in those disciplines using economic equilibration = entropy in the physical sciences.
Gender and The Brain as A Market for Attention https://t.co/pWO4mhYGl6
Gender and The Brain as A Market for Attention https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/gender-and-the-brain-as-a-market-for-attention/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 14:58:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267470565058719756
GENDER AND THE BRAIN AS A MARKET FOR ATTENTION The brain functions by a market for attention. Differences in brain structure especially between genders, provide increases or decreases in attention achievable by different regions, with urgent attention provided by fears, and long term attention provided by incentives. Attention is easier for men because we compartmentalize our brains with less interaction, and harder for women because their brains are more integrated. Worse, the ability to suppress impulse from the frontal region and back to the hippocampal region and own to the thalamus varies by individual regardless of gender. Worse, men are more dominant and less agreeable by a bit, and as such are more likely to express physical urgencies, where women verbal urgencies.
GENDER AND THE BRAIN AS A MARKET FOR ATTENTION The brain functions by a market for attention. Differences in brain structure especially between genders, provide increases or decreases in attention achievable by different regions, with urgent attention provided by fears, and long term attention provided by incentives. Attention is easier for men because we compartmentalize our brains with less interaction, and harder for women because their brains are more integrated. Worse, the ability to suppress impulse from the frontal region and back to the hippocampal region and own to the thalamus varies by individual regardless of gender. Worse, men are more dominant and less agreeable by a bit, and as such are more likely to express physical urgencies, where women verbal urgencies.
Differences in Gender Neutral Measurement https://t.co/5nMkV5Ibpm
Differences in Gender Neutral Measurement https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/differences-in-gender-neutral-measurement/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 14:58:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267470495240290310
DIFFERENCES IN GENDER NEUTRAL MEASUREMENT Training, bias, intuition, impulse, and predisposition are a spectrum of very different things, yet most of the gender-neutral literature measures the results of training not disposition, impulse, and bias. Why? Measurements evolved for measurement of men trained to fulfill roles in a hierarchical distribution.