Theme: Sex Differences

  • Like I said – Cognitively Female. Either Reversal or suppression of gender dimor

    Like I said – Cognitively Female. Either Reversal or suppression of gender dimorphism. But why do I say it?

    Because we are NOT affected, and we are the only people capable of agency, so it’s our responsibility to defend against it. And we can only defend against it through law – and education.

    40% more likely for schizophrenia.

    100% more likely for homosexuality.

    Higher (%?) rates of OCD among devout.

    Near universal female speech biase.

    Near universal female moral cognitive bias.

    Near universal use of female means of anti-social behavior

    Near universal use of female means of conflict (undermining)

    White matter bias.

    We forget that women can work longer and more consistently, and that men’s vigilance, strength, and velocity comes at the expense of task switching, task tolerance, and work duration.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-18 10:54:00 UTC

  • Sex diff’s were complete in 2012, and eight years later we see mainstream. After

    Sex diff’s were complete in 2012, and eight years later we see mainstream. After seventy years of pseudoscience, sophim, and lies, yet again “stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science”. We just have to endure another decade of letting the Snowflakes down gently. https://twitter.com/TradBritGroup/status/1207027637354422272

  • It’s gotta be genetic.

    I’m pretty sure it’s genetic like I’ve said: feminine cognition. Why do you get a Cantor Postmodern Math, Niels Bohr creating Postmodern Physics, Betty Friedan’s Postmodern Feminism, Derrida Postmodern Truth, with the exception being Keynes’ less postmodern economics?? Why do only Europeans produce aristotle, archimedes, DaVinci,Descartes, Newton, Darwin, Poincare, Hilbert, and why does even their Einstein write a description not a cause? Why do they get a Marx, Freud, Boas, Derrida, Chomsky vs Babbage,Frege, Goedel, Hayek, Turing and Doolittle? Verbal is real vs real is real.

  • It’s gotta be genetic.

    I’m pretty sure it’s genetic like I’ve said: feminine cognition. Why do you get a Cantor Postmodern Math, Niels Bohr creating Postmodern Physics, Betty Friedan’s Postmodern Feminism, Derrida Postmodern Truth, with the exception being Keynes’ less postmodern economics?? Why do only Europeans produce aristotle, archimedes, DaVinci,Descartes, Newton, Darwin, Poincare, Hilbert, and why does even their Einstein write a description not a cause? Why do they get a Marx, Freud, Boas, Derrida, Chomsky vs Babbage,Frege, Goedel, Hayek, Turing and Doolittle? Verbal is real vs real is real.

  • Cherry picking is the means of Straw Manning by econ pseudoscience (innumeracy).

    … Cherry picking is the means of Straw Manning by econ pseudoscience (innumeracy). And is using the Female strategy of Undermining by False Promise, Baiting into Hazard, by Pilpul, Critique, by moral pretense, under cover of Plausible Deniability of Intent to Harm.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-17 15:03:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206953113627824128

    Reply addressees: @paulkrugman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206952214192939008


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @paulkrugman CORRECTION: In order to maintain the economy through the election Trump is mirroring the tactic of the Chinese whose group strategy is Sun Tsu’s: “Delay and Deceive while Accumulating Strength until the Enemy Cannot Win.” Paul’s is to Undermine from Within by Cherry picking. ..

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1206952214192939008


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @paulkrugman CORRECTION: In order to maintain the economy through the election Trump is mirroring the tactic of the Chinese whose group strategy is Sun Tsu’s: “Delay and Deceive while Accumulating Strength until the Enemy Cannot Win.” Paul’s is to Undermine from Within by Cherry picking. ..

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1206952214192939008

  • I can’t help you son. You need to live with the women until ready to join the wo

    I can’t help you son. You need to live with the women until ready to join the world of men. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-16 22:40:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206705669530886145

    Reply addressees: @james__jenko

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206702699712065537


    IN REPLY TO:

    @james__jenko

    @curtdoolittle Your “anti-philosophy” is to philosophy what atheism is to religion. So, grow up.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206702699712065537

  • WHY AREN’T WOMEN HAVING CHILDREN? Humans follow incentives. @realDonalTrump @Ste

    WHY AREN’T WOMEN HAVING CHILDREN? Humans follow incentives. @realDonalTrump @Ste

    WHY AREN’T WOMEN HAVING CHILDREN?
    Humans follow incentives.
    @realDonalTrump @StefanMolyneux @freedomainradio https://t.co/Vv6GJYiNdf


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-16 17:40:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206630070762299392

  • Why Aren’t Women Having Children?

    People follow incentives. What percent of women obtain non-stem degrees at cost $100k debt during peak fertility? What is female tax vs interest contribution? What percent of tax revenues to women consume vs men? And what percent of tax revenue do women contribute vs men? (I know.) You can’t use women’s endless demand for hyperconsumption (esp of attention) as vehicles for academic, commercial, and interest revenue, and expect them to bear the same costs out of civic ‘duty’ (as men do for sex). Any more than men military without offer of the franchise. Women’s hyperconsumption and hypergamy evolved for the purpose of nesting for children, and competing with other women. If you direct that hyperconsumption to other ends, you will get the present result. And hyper-consumptive women are far better laborers for revenue extraction. Add moral relativism, and non-conformity, and multiculturalism, and moral persuasion no longer functions as incentives, since it no longer conveys status or attention, on one and, and loss of status and attention on the other. Women have no incentive to bear children. We forget that we domesticated both men AND women’s instincts with property, meritocracy, and monogamy. And we domesticated men’s violence, and women’s undermining with equal fervor until giving the franchise without demonstrating ability. All answers in economics and social science are rather obvious if you work in incentives instead of shallow moralizing. Use evolutionary demand, specialization, cognitive and emotional differences, not pretense of equality. The century of pseudoscience and sophism is at a close.

  • Why Aren’t Women Having Children?

    People follow incentives. What percent of women obtain non-stem degrees at cost $100k debt during peak fertility? What is female tax vs interest contribution? What percent of tax revenues to women consume vs men? And what percent of tax revenue do women contribute vs men? (I know.) You can’t use women’s endless demand for hyperconsumption (esp of attention) as vehicles for academic, commercial, and interest revenue, and expect them to bear the same costs out of civic ‘duty’ (as men do for sex). Any more than men military without offer of the franchise. Women’s hyperconsumption and hypergamy evolved for the purpose of nesting for children, and competing with other women. If you direct that hyperconsumption to other ends, you will get the present result. And hyper-consumptive women are far better laborers for revenue extraction. Add moral relativism, and non-conformity, and multiculturalism, and moral persuasion no longer functions as incentives, since it no longer conveys status or attention, on one and, and loss of status and attention on the other. Women have no incentive to bear children. We forget that we domesticated both men AND women’s instincts with property, meritocracy, and monogamy. And we domesticated men’s violence, and women’s undermining with equal fervor until giving the franchise without demonstrating ability. All answers in economics and social science are rather obvious if you work in incentives instead of shallow moralizing. Use evolutionary demand, specialization, cognitive and emotional differences, not pretense of equality. The century of pseudoscience and sophism is at a close.

  • We forget that we domesticated both men AND women’s instincts with property, mer

    We forget that we domesticated both men AND women’s instincts with property, meritocracy, and monogamy. And we domesticated men’s violence, and women’s undermining with equal fervor until giving the franchise without demonstrating ability.

    Remove incentives get the consequences.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-16 17:24:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206626179970740224

    Reply addressees: @EricRWeinstein

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206619244995235841


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @EricRWeinstein People follow incentives. What percent of women obtain non-stem degrees at cost $100k debt during peak fertility? What is female tax vs interest contribution? What percent of tax revenues to women consume vs men? And what percent of tax revenue to men contribute vs men? (I know.)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1206619244995235841


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @EricRWeinstein People follow incentives. What percent of women obtain non-stem degrees at cost $100k debt during peak fertility? What is female tax vs interest contribution? What percent of tax revenues to women consume vs men? And what percent of tax revenue to men contribute vs men? (I know.)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1206619244995235841