Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sex Differences

  • The Obvious Trade Offs: Agency vs Reaction Time

    Mar 25, 2020, 11:32 AM Neoteny gives us opportunity for agency.

    —“In 1991, Richard Lynn tested 1,468 9-year old children consisting of Blacks from South Africa, East Asians from Hong Kong and Japan, and Whites from Britain and Ireland. The content of the tests involved flipping a switch after one or more lights came on. Lynn found that the decision times (the time taken to make a decision about what to do) had a low correlation with IQ data on Raven’s Progressive Matrices tests also administered during the same study, and that movement times (the time taken to execute the decision) did not show any correlation. He found that the Asians had the fastest decision times, followed by the Whites, and then by the Blacks. He also determined that the Black children had movement times that were substantially faster than those of Whites and Asians on certain tests.[95] Studies by Jensen have shown similar patterns in response time on tests of arithmetic[96] and international studies by Lynn have also asserted the same trend.[97]”—

  • The Obvious Trade Offs: Agency vs Reaction Time

    Mar 25, 2020, 11:32 AM Neoteny gives us opportunity for agency.

    —“In 1991, Richard Lynn tested 1,468 9-year old children consisting of Blacks from South Africa, East Asians from Hong Kong and Japan, and Whites from Britain and Ireland. The content of the tests involved flipping a switch after one or more lights came on. Lynn found that the decision times (the time taken to make a decision about what to do) had a low correlation with IQ data on Raven’s Progressive Matrices tests also administered during the same study, and that movement times (the time taken to execute the decision) did not show any correlation. He found that the Asians had the fastest decision times, followed by the Whites, and then by the Blacks. He also determined that the Black children had movement times that were substantially faster than those of Whites and Asians on certain tests.[95] Studies by Jensen have shown similar patterns in response time on tests of arithmetic[96] and international studies by Lynn have also asserted the same trend.[97]”—

  • There Never Can Be

    Apr 14, 2020, 11:29 AM No there aren’t any civilizations led by female intellectuals so to speak – there never can be – the female strategy of undermining, hyper-consumption, hypergamy and equality is unsurvivable – a violation of evolutionary law. That doesn’t stop the jewish intellectuals from advancing the female group strategy despite the fact that all it can ever achieve is equilibrium (western civilization prior to enfranchisement) but that all female civilizations always and everywhere are defeated and always will be.

  • There Never Can Be

    Apr 14, 2020, 11:29 AM No there aren’t any civilizations led by female intellectuals so to speak – there never can be – the female strategy of undermining, hyper-consumption, hypergamy and equality is unsurvivable – a violation of evolutionary law. That doesn’t stop the jewish intellectuals from advancing the female group strategy despite the fact that all it can ever achieve is equilibrium (western civilization prior to enfranchisement) but that all female civilizations always and everywhere are defeated and always will be.

  • Strategies

    Apr 14, 2020, 12:02 PM by Lucas Cort The male strategy creates sovereignty (IN FACT – violence and Law – establishment of action, preservation and insurance between insurers) Those Sovereigns then grant PERMISSION to those of lesser insurance or specializations in the division of labour to act within the limits of that permission(markets) what we call FREEDOM. The ascendant male navigates the permissible freedom with LIBERTY(agency, autonomy). When liberty becomes the starting point without understanding the necessity for the larger structures permission and insurance to uphold that permission, the idea of liberty (autonomy) can undermine the very thing that allows it to survive through entitlement (false priors) and possible negative externalities that undermine group cohesion (think libertarianism – baiting into hazard, etc). This can be divided further into the female strategy, which has the primarily focus on empathy using social transactions to create redistribution within the group. If this becomes the starting point, entitlement devoid merit, hyper consumption, and redistribution undermine the value of the structure that allows it to navigate, just as the ascendant male.

  • Strategies

    Apr 14, 2020, 12:02 PM by Lucas Cort The male strategy creates sovereignty (IN FACT – violence and Law – establishment of action, preservation and insurance between insurers) Those Sovereigns then grant PERMISSION to those of lesser insurance or specializations in the division of labour to act within the limits of that permission(markets) what we call FREEDOM. The ascendant male navigates the permissible freedom with LIBERTY(agency, autonomy). When liberty becomes the starting point without understanding the necessity for the larger structures permission and insurance to uphold that permission, the idea of liberty (autonomy) can undermine the very thing that allows it to survive through entitlement (false priors) and possible negative externalities that undermine group cohesion (think libertarianism – baiting into hazard, etc). This can be divided further into the female strategy, which has the primarily focus on empathy using social transactions to create redistribution within the group. If this becomes the starting point, entitlement devoid merit, hyper consumption, and redistribution undermine the value of the structure that allows it to navigate, just as the ascendant male.

  • Trading Masculine European Adversarialism for Feminine Abrahamic Undermining

    Trading Masculine European Adversarialism for Feminine Abrahamic Undermining https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/trading-masculine-european-adversarialism-for-feminine-abrahamic-undermining/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 03:32:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265848492691533824

  • It’s Not an Act. It’s a Methodology.

    May 10, 2020, 3:58 PM (Masculinity. Aversarialism. King of the Hill. War) (updated)(reposted) You know, people don’t understand the method to the madness. Nothing is random. It’s painfully deliberate.

    1. Equality was a false promise
    2. An aristocracy of everyone was a false promise.
    3. Aristocracy(Martial limits-via-negativa) > Nobility(Social-Political – choices-via-positiva) > Burgher(Economic practical) > Craftsman (productive, necessary) > Mother(reproductive, promising) > Children(Learning, the proposal) is not a false promise – it’s descriptive: the truth.

    We are not equal, we are interdependent. We earn respect despite our inequality by doing our duty to our interdependence. We maintain that respect and interdependence with loyalty despite our inequality. We demonstrate the obligation of the nobility, the duty of the citizenry, and this is how we work together. We are an army first and a polity second, a society third, bound by the EQUALITY UNDER OUR LAW despite our inequality in ability and value to one another. And that is our secret. Hence the ‘act like aristocracy’. You must be what you wish to become. Teach men Adversarialism. Teach by (forgiving) king of the hill games. Teach men across ages not by age – to lead, advise, follow. Teach by metaphor: 1. Kings (dominant male leadership – quarterbacks) 2. Bishops (cunning, intelligence, spies, advisors) 3. Knights (fast, maneuver – receivers, raiders ) 4. Rooks (Heavy Infantry – Bearers – linebackers) 5. Pawns (Infantry – Defense) 6. Fools ( Messengers, Negotiators) 7. Queens (Ambassadors) Teach Men

    • War – Adversarialism
      … … … (Evolution)
      … – Politics – the Proxy for War
      … … … … (Political War)
      … … – Law – The Organization of Polities
      … … … … … (Procedural War)
      … … … – Economics – the funding of Polities and War.
      … … … … … … (Productive War)
      … … … … – Engineering – the manipulation of the world
      … … … … … … … (Innovative war)
      … … … … … – Testimony – the art of truthful speech
      … … … … … … … … (War against ignorance error deceit)
      … … … … … … … – Negotiation – The art of compromise.

    TRADING MASCULINE EUROPEAN ADVERSARIALISM FOR FEMININE ABRAHAMIC UNDERMINING (important framing) The western canon consists of the study of Adversarialism: Truth(Science), Law, Politics, Economics, and War. That’s my ambition for the Propertarian Institute. The postwar doctrine consists in the eradication of Adversarialism – because women can’t compete. Without grasping that it is the foundation of our civilization. So we have replaced truthful Adversarialism with dishonest, sophomoric, and pseudoscientific feminine undermining. Why? Sexual Genetics: Truth and Systems Vs Approval and Experiences. Adversarialism: truth seeking, Discourse: consensus seeking, Undermining: deception seeking.

  • It’s Not an Act. It’s a Methodology.

    May 10, 2020, 3:58 PM (Masculinity. Aversarialism. King of the Hill. War) (updated)(reposted) You know, people don’t understand the method to the madness. Nothing is random. It’s painfully deliberate.

    1. Equality was a false promise
    2. An aristocracy of everyone was a false promise.
    3. Aristocracy(Martial limits-via-negativa) > Nobility(Social-Political – choices-via-positiva) > Burgher(Economic practical) > Craftsman (productive, necessary) > Mother(reproductive, promising) > Children(Learning, the proposal) is not a false promise – it’s descriptive: the truth.

    We are not equal, we are interdependent. We earn respect despite our inequality by doing our duty to our interdependence. We maintain that respect and interdependence with loyalty despite our inequality. We demonstrate the obligation of the nobility, the duty of the citizenry, and this is how we work together. We are an army first and a polity second, a society third, bound by the EQUALITY UNDER OUR LAW despite our inequality in ability and value to one another. And that is our secret. Hence the ‘act like aristocracy’. You must be what you wish to become. Teach men Adversarialism. Teach by (forgiving) king of the hill games. Teach men across ages not by age – to lead, advise, follow. Teach by metaphor: 1. Kings (dominant male leadership – quarterbacks) 2. Bishops (cunning, intelligence, spies, advisors) 3. Knights (fast, maneuver – receivers, raiders ) 4. Rooks (Heavy Infantry – Bearers – linebackers) 5. Pawns (Infantry – Defense) 6. Fools ( Messengers, Negotiators) 7. Queens (Ambassadors) Teach Men

    • War – Adversarialism
      … … … (Evolution)
      … – Politics – the Proxy for War
      … … … … (Political War)
      … … – Law – The Organization of Polities
      … … … … … (Procedural War)
      … … … – Economics – the funding of Polities and War.
      … … … … … … (Productive War)
      … … … … – Engineering – the manipulation of the world
      … … … … … … … (Innovative war)
      … … … … … – Testimony – the art of truthful speech
      … … … … … … … … (War against ignorance error deceit)
      … … … … … … … – Negotiation – The art of compromise.

    TRADING MASCULINE EUROPEAN ADVERSARIALISM FOR FEMININE ABRAHAMIC UNDERMINING (important framing) The western canon consists of the study of Adversarialism: Truth(Science), Law, Politics, Economics, and War. That’s my ambition for the Propertarian Institute. The postwar doctrine consists in the eradication of Adversarialism – because women can’t compete. Without grasping that it is the foundation of our civilization. So we have replaced truthful Adversarialism with dishonest, sophomoric, and pseudoscientific feminine undermining. Why? Sexual Genetics: Truth and Systems Vs Approval and Experiences. Adversarialism: truth seeking, Discourse: consensus seeking, Undermining: deception seeking.

  • The difference is agency.

    May 21, 2020, 11:42 AM Can I say something politically incorrect that’s rather obvious in the political data, that’s made more obvious by the current crisis? Democrats and women are more unhappy and fearful. Conservaties and men are more disgust sensitive and paranoid but less fearful- and much happier. The difference is agency. Evaluate women’s opinions not as truth, or fact, or opinion, but as demand for men to do something to satisfy them. So is the underlying question teaching women how to express themselves in female terms of approval and disapproval, fear and want, rather than attempting to teach women to think in truth and fact? I mean, that’s what the postmodern program is about right?