Yes, well the secret of religious devotion especially for women is that the truth is less important than belonging (conformity). It is almost impossible to find a woman that is not a victim of this particular cognitive drive. It supercedes her reason at nearly all times, and is the cause of victim mentality in women who are simply unsafe and fall in to victim spirals seeing rapists everywhere.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 11:00:00 UTC
—“WHY ARE WE NOT SEEING A SHOCK FROM GENDER ASYMMETRY IN INDIA AND CHINA?”—
1- Economic opportunity is masking conflict – as it always does. The return of economic limitations restores group conflicts.
2 – Substantial underclass populations still preserving family.
3 – So there is sex pressure but still hope.
4 – And there is marriage retention and still hope.
5 – Unlike the west, they are not wealthy enough to destroy the economic security of the family.
6 – Japan is the … oddity. (Low testosterone in asian men is not a good thing)
In any society where the woman are capable of both single motherhood and middle class (technological) workplace substitution of men, we should see a retreat to serial marriage and excess males. Males are cost to a woman while raising children if they are working.
This same effect won’t occur in populations with IQ’s below 95 (massive underclasses).
And the upper classes will always find greater competitive and status value in dual incomes or high male income with supported females.
Without eugenics either environmental, agrarian, or political, it is very hard to maintain human advancement.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 10:53:00 UTC
JUST LOVE THEM AND LIMIT THEIR INFLUENCE TO THEIR DOMAIN OF COMPETENCE
Love women, dont argue with them. Let them believe their feelings are sources of knowledge. they are overwhelmed by them and lack agency because of them. And cannot function if they cannot trust them. Those feelings are temporally and individually valuable. just deny their application to scale and intertemporal conditions where feelings are relevant to individuals but outcomes relevant to the group regardless of individual feelings. we made the mistake of universal enfranchisement. women are not bad they are wonderful. but their intuitions of scale (political) are as useless as are male intuitions about carrying, nursing, and caring for infants. The problem with universal enfranchisement, is that while women can deny us interpersonal influence we can no longer deny them political influence. we are compatible only through trade, and by trade we calculate the nash optimum despite our differences in ability and interest. and by including women in the political we eliminated the female market for marriage as well as the male market for politics.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 07:53:00 UTC
DIFFERENCES IN INTRINSIC VALUE OF WOMEN AND MEN
The majority women are de facto intrinsically valuable unless behaviorally costly as individuals. the majority of men are only intrinsically valuable as a team unless behaviorally exceptional as individuals. this asymmetry explains genetic asymmetry of reproduction of the genders, and the dangers of excess men explains the development of marriage, and the disappearance of groups with excess women.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-08 07:22:00 UTC
WIRED FOR GADGETS
Men have a thing for ‘devices’ like women have a thing for accessories. I can’t remember the study but basically the more gears and stupid stuff a thing has the more interested a male will be in it. Some test where they brought men into rooms and let them get bored for a minute and watched what they demonstrated an interest in, and the mechanical stuff just won every time. The whole transformers thing took advantage of this basic idea, and its why gaming and programming is so hypnotizing and consuming for men.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 18:11:00 UTC
LOVE IS ENOUGH. TRUTH IS FOR MEN. POSSIBILITY FOR WOMEN.
Like I said. Love women. Listen to them (it’s hard to do that for any length of time I know – but all men develop the ability to filter, respond, and not try to solve all their problems). Try to make them happy as you can without going into debt. Don’t argue truth and falsehood, or good or bad, just take a stand on what is possible and advisable or not. Women are the most awesome part of life I’ve found, and other than destroying the competition in business the greatest high. 😉 But they aren’t men, and we aren’t women, and we’re both much happier when we understand that. 😉 It’s usually easier to get men to understand that women aren’t men than get (american) women to understand men aren’t women. The problem is very simple economics of demographics: since women are more marginally indifferent and more narrowly distributed, the number of men desirable for women is much smaller than the number of women desirable for men – and this is a constant problem. Women settle much more often than men. And while women almost always underestimate their sexual market value (it’s just weight and preening and you’re there), men vastly overestimate their sexual market value. So for men, it’s not complicated: read heavy things, lift heavy things, save and invest everything you can. When a woman attracts a man her standard of living increases by twenty percent or more. When a man attracts a woman his standard of living decreases by twenty percent or more. For women men are emotionally burdensome, and for men women are experientially (financially) burdensome. So make sure you understand the investment you’re making in one another. Marriage is the most damaging financial mistake you can make and is the most significant factor in determining whether you will be comfortable and happy or poor and depressed in old age.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 17:04:00 UTC
Do you know what the cognitive bias called NAXALT is, and how you can identify that a woman, or a male lacking a father is speaking by the use of this cognitive bias? Men cognitively perceive distributions and speak in distributions. Women fear distributions and speak in equality or indifferences. So you merely demonstrate the fact that we are different in cognitive function (which the science says anyway – men and women have different brain structures), just as we are in anti-social behavior, with men biasing toward physical crime and women biasing toward emotional and psychological crime (psychosis). So, no the statement is simply true. Which is one of the primary causes for the relative absence of women in powerful positions in high risk and competitive organizations, versus the relative dominance of women in parasitic monopolistic bureaucracies like the government and education. We are paid in no small part by our loyalty.
Do you know what the cognitive bias called NAXALT is, and how you can identify that a woman, or a male lacking a father is speaking by the use of this cognitive bias? Men cognitively perceive distributions and speak in distributions. Women fear distributions and speak in equality or indifferences. So you merely demonstrate the fact that we are different in cognitive function (which the science says anyway – men and women have different brain structures), just as we are in anti-social behavior, with men biasing toward physical crime and women biasing toward emotional and psychological crime (psychosis). So, no the statement is simply true. Which is one of the primary causes for the relative absence of women in powerful positions in high risk and competitive organizations, versus the relative dominance of women in parasitic monopolistic bureaucracies like the government and education. We are paid in no small part by our loyalty.
UM, LET ME HELP YOU….. —“Just an opinion”— It is a fact that we can, using the big 5/6 inventory, and breaking those dimensions into traits, measure the differences between the expressions of those genders, and this measurement has been done at vast scale over many years. These traits map to reward (endocrine) systems. Those endocrine systems map to stages of the prey and reproductive drives, since in evolutionary history that is the minimum necessary framework evolution was able to work with and extend into the full suite of properties of homo-sapiens-sapiens. As such, while I use Ordinary Language Terms, those terms are necessary to translate those differences in endocrine responses and therefore incentives, to a narrative set of comparisons that people can understand. In this case, men in fact do demonstrate loyalty and women far less, while men do not experience what women call devotion (the feeling they have toward children) on anywhere near the scale. I then translate these terms into economic language such that we see the equilibrial relation between male and female behavior. I do this so that I can explain to people in scientific terms what their intuitions mean, sot hat they know they are both genetically determined (80%) in utero/developmentally determined (20%) and not choice. Because they are not choice, that means we must not expect to CONVINCE each other. Instead the solution is not to achieve one solution or the other but to create exchanges where both get SOME or MOST of what they want (both personally and politically) even if none of us get ALL of what we want. Now because I just assume you are a decent person (it is my default presumption even if I must tolerate the occasional solipsism from the intuitions of women, and the occasional dominance expression from overconfident young men), I’m taking the time to explain this to you – even though you did not take the time to investigate me, or ask me how I came to such conclusions, or even construct a rational or scientific opposition, just an emotive one. But I cannot cover the subjects I do, which literally encompass the entirety of the human spectrum of knowledge and explain every statement in argumentative form. Instead, people tend to follow me for rather long periods, and I post a lot of aphorisms, contrasts (as do confucians, but closed), series, spectra, and grids as well as “SKETCHES” because if I wrote proofs for every idea I put forth (a) no one could comprehend them, and (b) I would cover 1/100000’th of the subjects that I do. OK? Thank you. 😉
UM, LET ME HELP YOU….. —“Just an opinion”— It is a fact that we can, using the big 5/6 inventory, and breaking those dimensions into traits, measure the differences between the expressions of those genders, and this measurement has been done at vast scale over many years. These traits map to reward (endocrine) systems. Those endocrine systems map to stages of the prey and reproductive drives, since in evolutionary history that is the minimum necessary framework evolution was able to work with and extend into the full suite of properties of homo-sapiens-sapiens. As such, while I use Ordinary Language Terms, those terms are necessary to translate those differences in endocrine responses and therefore incentives, to a narrative set of comparisons that people can understand. In this case, men in fact do demonstrate loyalty and women far less, while men do not experience what women call devotion (the feeling they have toward children) on anywhere near the scale. I then translate these terms into economic language such that we see the equilibrial relation between male and female behavior. I do this so that I can explain to people in scientific terms what their intuitions mean, sot hat they know they are both genetically determined (80%) in utero/developmentally determined (20%) and not choice. Because they are not choice, that means we must not expect to CONVINCE each other. Instead the solution is not to achieve one solution or the other but to create exchanges where both get SOME or MOST of what they want (both personally and politically) even if none of us get ALL of what we want. Now because I just assume you are a decent person (it is my default presumption even if I must tolerate the occasional solipsism from the intuitions of women, and the occasional dominance expression from overconfident young men), I’m taking the time to explain this to you – even though you did not take the time to investigate me, or ask me how I came to such conclusions, or even construct a rational or scientific opposition, just an emotive one. But I cannot cover the subjects I do, which literally encompass the entirety of the human spectrum of knowledge and explain every statement in argumentative form. Instead, people tend to follow me for rather long periods, and I post a lot of aphorisms, contrasts (as do confucians, but closed), series, spectra, and grids as well as “SKETCHES” because if I wrote proofs for every idea I put forth (a) no one could comprehend them, and (b) I would cover 1/100000’th of the subjects that I do. OK? Thank you. 😉