Theme: Sex Differences

  • We Can Afford to Separate, Specialize, and Speciate

    Just as one of our favorite pundits explains that as we become more wealthy, and institutionally and economically equal, we tend rather dramatically to increase our gender bias expressions – also, in all cases, as we become wealthier, we seek to explore our differences and reinforce them rather than pay the cost of adaptation to a norm. Most conservative liberal conflict is over this difference in conservatives paying costs to conform vs liberals consuming to experiment or explore. With liberals objecting to paying for costs they don’t want to pay directly, and conservatives objective to absorbing costs of liberal consumption and experimentation. Now, there are two choices: conservatives oppress liberals, or liberals oppress conservatives, or we separate, specialize and speciate. In other words, somewhere around 3500 years ago we slowed speciation. In the 20th century the left has attempted to reverse it. And they are succeeding – with horridly dysgenic results. But with very little effort we can now AFFORD to return to speciation. Fortunately, this is great for conservatives who are naturally eugenic, and great for liberals in the short term who are naturally dysgenic. But in the end it means we will, in the aggregate, return to white and east asian excellence and everything between us will once again decline – until they pose a threat to us out of necessity and envy. Time to return to speciation.
  • We Can Afford to Separate, Specialize, and Speciate

    Just as one of our favorite pundits explains that as we become more wealthy, and institutionally and economically equal, we tend rather dramatically to increase our gender bias expressions – also, in all cases, as we become wealthier, we seek to explore our differences and reinforce them rather than pay the cost of adaptation to a norm. Most conservative liberal conflict is over this difference in conservatives paying costs to conform vs liberals consuming to experiment or explore. With liberals objecting to paying for costs they don’t want to pay directly, and conservatives objective to absorbing costs of liberal consumption and experimentation. Now, there are two choices: conservatives oppress liberals, or liberals oppress conservatives, or we separate, specialize and speciate. In other words, somewhere around 3500 years ago we slowed speciation. In the 20th century the left has attempted to reverse it. And they are succeeding – with horridly dysgenic results. But with very little effort we can now AFFORD to return to speciation. Fortunately, this is great for conservatives who are naturally eugenic, and great for liberals in the short term who are naturally dysgenic. But in the end it means we will, in the aggregate, return to white and east asian excellence and everything between us will once again decline – until they pose a threat to us out of necessity and envy. Time to return to speciation.
  • Finishing up The Single Motherhood Topic

    I wanted to use the single motherhood subject to test how many people rely on how little data, vs how few people went out and did more than cursory data collection. As a sensitive (controversial) topic with high causal density it’s an example of a ‘hard problem’. 1 – The data that fathers make better single parents is because single fathers are more likely to cohabitate with a woman and provide a full family. 2 – The casual problem driving externalities from single mother households is poverty, and the disproportionate number of them in the non-white underclasses which means poverty is continuous for genetic reasons. 3 – The social problem is CULTURE, in that mothers from GOOD backgrounds (Cultures, Traditions, Classes) seem to produce (largely) healthy offspring free of externalities Now, it took quite a bit of discussion for the arguments to come out. As I understand it, this is the set of incentives; 0 – In general, people are unprepared for marriage, in large part because they begin working too late, are poorly socialized, are terribly selfish because of it, have been too frustrated and made physically unfit by the education process, and are too desirous of spending money – essentially developmentally delayed and frustrated for it. Worse, they have no institutional incentives to produce a family that will somehow care for them in later life, too much taxation and interest to afford children and must pay ridiculous prices for housing for the simple reason that they cannot segregate their neighborhoods by other than housing price. In other words, you cannot live cheaply with good people, if we cannot separate by character, culture, and tribe. 1 – Divorce provides too many incentives for the woman, and too many harms to the man. This creates a dysfunctional marriage. 2 – In general, the work of a woman’s adapting to a male in the household (nest), and providing him with sufficient attention while children are young, that he will remain engaged, is greater than most women will spare, unless the male provides so much income that she doesn’t need to work. 3 – Over-control, Overprotection and Guilt – sense of being out of control. The Physical, Mental and Emotional exhaustion that exacerbates the feeling of being out of control. 4 – Tendency to replace children, especially male children, with the friendship one gets from a mate. This puts extraordinary burden on the child that manifests later in life. There is a reason for Alexander, Napoleon, and Hitler: mothers under duress. As such, again, the problem is cultural. We extend adolescence (infantilize) instead of prepare for adulthood. Families wouldn’t break if there were (a) lower or zero home interest (b) far greater tax reduction per child, (c) we brought capital to people, rather than people to capital, so that intergenerational families could provide support, thereby reducing the cost of childrearing (family production) (d) we didn’t provide incentives to divorce. Cheers

  • Finishing up The Single Motherhood Topic

    I wanted to use the single motherhood subject to test how many people rely on how little data, vs how few people went out and did more than cursory data collection. As a sensitive (controversial) topic with high causal density it’s an example of a ‘hard problem’. 1 – The data that fathers make better single parents is because single fathers are more likely to cohabitate with a woman and provide a full family. 2 – The casual problem driving externalities from single mother households is poverty, and the disproportionate number of them in the non-white underclasses which means poverty is continuous for genetic reasons. 3 – The social problem is CULTURE, in that mothers from GOOD backgrounds (Cultures, Traditions, Classes) seem to produce (largely) healthy offspring free of externalities Now, it took quite a bit of discussion for the arguments to come out. As I understand it, this is the set of incentives; 0 – In general, people are unprepared for marriage, in large part because they begin working too late, are poorly socialized, are terribly selfish because of it, have been too frustrated and made physically unfit by the education process, and are too desirous of spending money – essentially developmentally delayed and frustrated for it. Worse, they have no institutional incentives to produce a family that will somehow care for them in later life, too much taxation and interest to afford children and must pay ridiculous prices for housing for the simple reason that they cannot segregate their neighborhoods by other than housing price. In other words, you cannot live cheaply with good people, if we cannot separate by character, culture, and tribe. 1 – Divorce provides too many incentives for the woman, and too many harms to the man. This creates a dysfunctional marriage. 2 – In general, the work of a woman’s adapting to a male in the household (nest), and providing him with sufficient attention while children are young, that he will remain engaged, is greater than most women will spare, unless the male provides so much income that she doesn’t need to work. 3 – Over-control, Overprotection and Guilt – sense of being out of control. The Physical, Mental and Emotional exhaustion that exacerbates the feeling of being out of control. 4 – Tendency to replace children, especially male children, with the friendship one gets from a mate. This puts extraordinary burden on the child that manifests later in life. There is a reason for Alexander, Napoleon, and Hitler: mothers under duress. As such, again, the problem is cultural. We extend adolescence (infantilize) instead of prepare for adulthood. Families wouldn’t break if there were (a) lower or zero home interest (b) far greater tax reduction per child, (c) we brought capital to people, rather than people to capital, so that intergenerational families could provide support, thereby reducing the cost of childrearing (family production) (d) we didn’t provide incentives to divorce. Cheers

  • Women Rule only When Men Can No Longer Reach Consensus – It Is a Death Knell

    From: The Fate of Empires by Arthur John Hubbard (via Noah J Revoy) “An increase of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the Professions hitherto monopolized by men. ‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian, lbn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk, tax-collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.’ Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded. Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed.”

  • Women Rule only When Men Can No Longer Reach Consensus – It Is a Death Knell

    From: The Fate of Empires by Arthur John Hubbard (via Noah J Revoy) “An increase of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the Professions hitherto monopolized by men. ‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian, lbn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk, tax-collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.’ Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded. Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed.”

  • WOMEN RULE ONLY WHEN MEN CAN NO LONGER REACH CONSENSUS – IT IS A DEATH KNELL Fro

    WOMEN RULE ONLY WHEN MEN CAN NO LONGER REACH CONSENSUS – IT IS A DEATH KNELL

    From: The Fate of Empires by Arthur John Hubbard

    (via Noah J Revoy)

    “An increase of women in public life has often been associated with national decline.

    The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women

    ruled Rome.

    In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the

    Professions hitherto monopolized by men.

    ‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian, lbn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk, tax-collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.’

    Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded.

    Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed.”


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-20 10:21:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/your_posts/35686957_10156437469472264_2711089262538784768_n_10

    photos_and_videos/your_posts/35686957_10156437469472264_2711089262538784768_n_10156437469467264.jpg Curt DoolittleFig. 1. Electron micrograph of dysgenic entropy in formerly H. Sapiens Sapiens. – Simon StrömJun 19, 2018 9:01amGeorge Hobbswaiting for the shepherds to justify thisJun 19, 2018 9:05amKelly WilsonHow symbolic the term flock is. To be sheared fattened and butchered. For the benefit of the shepherdJun 19, 2018 9:09amAnne SummersMost of us are naturally sheep. Some of us are capable of accepting such a reality. The comparison of humans to sheep is as old as written history, or older. It wasn’t always an insult. It was once the mark of a good and connected ruler to be called a shepard. The archetype of shepard and father/patriarch was synonymous.Jun 19, 2018 9:21amCurt DoolittleHence the need for good rule.Jun 19, 2018 9:40amGeorge Hobbsthe sheep/shepherd model describes a minority upper class ruling a majority underclass with virtually no middle class. in fact, the abundance of a middle class disrupts the stability of this model and naturally, the upper class would prefer to eliminate this instabilityJun 19, 2018 9:42amRichard JacobsonThis says alot about are societyJun 19, 2018 11:01amVik LiA meme?!Jun 20, 2018 9:36pm


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 09:00:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/35686957_10156437469472264_27110892

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/35686957_10156437469472264_2711089262538784768_n_10156437469467264.jpg Curt DoolittleFig. 1. Electron micrograph of dysgenic entropy in formerly H. Sapiens Sapiens. – Simon StrömJun 19, 2018 9:01amGeorge Perceval Oswaldwaiting for the shepherds to justify thisJun 19, 2018 9:05amKelly WilsonHow symbolic the term flock is. To be sheared fattened and butchered. For the benefit of the shepherdJun 19, 2018 9:09amAnne SummersMost of us are naturally sheep. Some of us are capable of accepting such a reality. The comparison of humans to sheep is as old as written history, or older. It wasn’t always an insult. It was once the mark of a good and connected ruler to be called a shepard. The archetype of shepard and father/patriarch was synonymous.Jun 19, 2018 9:21amCurt DoolittleHence the need for good rule.Jun 19, 2018 9:40amGeorge Perceval Oswaldthe sheep/shepherd model describes a minority upper class ruling a majority underclass with virtually no middle class. in fact, the abundance of a middle class disrupts the stability of this model and naturally, the upper class would prefer to eliminate this instabilityJun 19, 2018 9:42amRichard JacobsonThis says alot about are societyJun 19, 2018 11:01amVik LiA meme?!Jun 20, 2018 9:36pm


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-19 09:00:00 UTC

  • Restoring the Market for Parental Roles

    Parenting (Training, Risk Taking) and Care-taking (Maintenance, Risk Reduction) are very different things. As in all things the competition (market) between via-positiva and via-negativa produces optimums. Why? Anything else would require evolution not err, and frequently fail to adapt. We are not ants. We are special because of how rapidly we adapt. As such it is this market competition that creates a healthy human. Ergo, we education to produce an optimum (failure point, fragility point) because of female influence in education, whereas producing competitions (stresses, adaptions, anti-fragility) produces humans because of male competition. Women have destroyed civilization because they have undue influence in children, education (religion), and government. Pandora was a catastrophe. We have to restore competition (differences) between the genders, not seek equality.