We argue the point. Women argue the person. All (((They))) have done is change from arguing the person by insult or shame to arguing the person by pseudoscientific insult or shame (psychologizing).
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 09:21:00 UTC
Theme: Sex Differences
-
We invented truth and the immediate resolution of differences – the male strateg
We invented truth and the immediate resolution of differences – the male strategy of the strong. (((They))) invented lying and incremental undermining – the female strategy of the weak.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 09:13:00 UTC
-
It appears that a european male needs a higher IQ than an ashkenazi to compose t
It appears that a european male needs a higher IQ than an ashkenazi to compose the same fluidity of sentences, just as it requires a male of higher IQ to speak with the fluidity of women. Just as the east asians very rarely approximate european levels of speech despite what certainly appears to be higher intelligence.
I want to understand this. Meaning I want to understand if its true, or if it’s a problem of language.
I know that by developing propertarianism I developed a language for speaking what I could not speak rationally without it. But retraining yourself to speak in the ‘economic transactions’ of operational propertarian speech is as hard as learning another language.
I think that if we were taught this language from a young age, that we would think as much more clearly about the world (and better voice our ideas) as we did between religion and empiricism.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 09:07:00 UTC
-
It’s not a gene, its that our development is being repressed in order to educate
It’s not a gene, its that our development is being repressed in order to educate us in the same room with girls, and with different ethnic groups that sexually mature faster than we do. We need exercise, competition, and dominance play. And to learn to compete not PLEASE.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-10 21:05:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/983813333626294272
Reply addressees: @Spagaletto
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/983766535574642688
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/983766535574642688
-
THAT WE NEEDED PROOF, BUT … INBREEDING. —“We found significant decline in ch
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4196914/NOT THAT WE NEEDED PROOF, BUT … INBREEDING.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4196914/
—“We found significant decline in child cognitive abilities due to inbreeding and high frequency of mental retardation among offspring from inbred families. The mean differences (95% C.I.) were reported for the VIQ, being −22.00 (−24.82, −19.17), PIQ −26.92 (−29.96, −23.87) and FSIQ −24.47 (−27.35, −21.59) for inbred as compared to non-inbred children (p>0.001). The higher risk of being mentally retarded was found to be more obvious among inbred categories corresponding to the degree of inbreeding and the same accounts least for non-inbred children (p<0.0001). We observed an increase in the difference in mean values for VIQ, PIQ and FSIQ with the increase of inbreeding coefficient and these were found to be statistically significant (p<0.05). The regression analysis showed a fitness decline (depression) for VIQ (R2 = 0.436), PIQ (R2 = 0.468) and FSIQ (R2 = 0.464) with increasing inbreeding coefficients (p<0.01).”—
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-06 20:56:00 UTC
-
“WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON TEEN SEX?”— As always, the problem is not sex, but ca
—“WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON TEEN SEX?”—
As always, the problem is not sex, but causes and consequences:
(a) pregnancy – and the damage this does to not only you, the child, but the society that must pay for your mistakes,
(b) and single motherhood,
(c) or immature parenthood,
(d) the degree of interest in it, such that it detracts from other things.
(e) the high correlation between multiple sex partners and unsuccessful families.
The ‘intensity’ of the male sex drive in the teens is just …. amazing. Testosterone is the most wonderful drug of all. It’s just mind-consuming.
I think for boys it doesn’t matter – we are evolutionary machines and the need for sex is purely physical. But girls are different – and should not use sex to ‘buy’ attention, or being liked, or ‘belonging’, or ‘status’ (which is all too common), and should not participate because of alcohol or drugs – if you need alcohol you aren’t ready yet.
This is the best test: If you aren’t prepared with protection, aren’t ready to do it without chemical assistance, aren’t willing to plan it rather than stumble into it, and you aren’t willing to keep it between the two of you permanently, then you aren’t ready. Conversely, if you have protection, don’t need chemical assistance (drugs or alcohol), can plan it so that it’s private somewhere, and can keep it between the two of you permanently (the urge to tell everyone is very powerful), then you might be ready.
General rule of thumb: What happens between male and female is no one’s business as long as you don’t make it anyone’s business. This is true in all walks of life. The problem is, do you need to tell anyone? If you do, then you aren’t ready.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-05 16:46:00 UTC
-
Production or Consumption?
by Ely Harman Women participating in economic production, (beyond a very low level where their specializations are most helpful, or until marriage) are not participating in production but participating in consumption – especially the consumption of their genetic inheritance, in exchange for a single lifetime of careerism and sensation seeking. But all the status and memories they accumulate that way will die with them. I don’t see what was wrong with the post agrarian norms, where men were responsible for all of the war and politics and most of the economic production, while women were responsible for most of the reproduction and caretaking. That worked well enough for thousands of years. I think the main reason it’s been abandoned is that defection is individually rational, but collectively irrational. Nearly everyone would be better off, in their own estimation, if defection were effectively barred, though they may be better off still if they were able to defect while no one else could (fails existential possibility and reciprocity.
-
Production or Consumption?
by Ely Harman Women participating in economic production, (beyond a very low level where their specializations are most helpful, or until marriage) are not participating in production but participating in consumption – especially the consumption of their genetic inheritance, in exchange for a single lifetime of careerism and sensation seeking. But all the status and memories they accumulate that way will die with them. I don’t see what was wrong with the post agrarian norms, where men were responsible for all of the war and politics and most of the economic production, while women were responsible for most of the reproduction and caretaking. That worked well enough for thousands of years. I think the main reason it’s been abandoned is that defection is individually rational, but collectively irrational. Nearly everyone would be better off, in their own estimation, if defection were effectively barred, though they may be better off still if they were able to defect while no one else could (fails existential possibility and reciprocity.
-
The Problem of Current Families
It’s better stated that women have costly opportunities but have little competition, and males have cheap opportunities and infinite competition; and that women are trying to capture better opportunities and men are simply trying to increase the number of opportunities. ( Ergo, larger testicals for polyamorous apes and smaller testicals for dominant apes. ) There is nothing natural about*lifetime* monogamy, and everything natural about serial pairing off. The reason being *classes*. Pairing off provides Nash Optimums, just as much as markets produce Pareto Distributions. The problem with lifetime monogamy is that it evolved with and is dependent upon PROPERTY. For some people that property is part of the shared attraction (status). For others it is not so – they lack marginally sufficient productive ability to produce status signals, or to alter their sexual, social, economic, political, and military market values. Ergo we should see Power Couples at the top with lifetime marriages, affairs in the mature middle class, but preservation of lifetime monogamy, serial relationships in the lower classes. Which is what we see. One of the consequences of post industrial wealth (caused by the capture of energy) is that we can afford to pursue our preferences rather than have those preferences constrained by the previous conditions. This is what we see. We see vast exploration of preferences because we can afford to explore them (conduct research protgrams, and either succeed or fail) but at some point we have to measure the externalities produced, and that is what conservatives do…. we measure the intertemporal consequences. We are the long term ‘limiters’ that defend the gene pool – or fail to. The economic consequences of pairing off are substantial. The economic consequences of lifetime monogamy are substantial. The economic consequences of homogeneity and eugenic reproduction are substantial. In fact, they might be the most substantial. The way we restore these very-high-returns is simply *to stop funding alternatives thru redistribution* and let meritocracy reign again. That will produce families, and suppress underclass reproduction, and as a consequence produce greater wealth.
-
The Problem of Current Families
It’s better stated that women have costly opportunities but have little competition, and males have cheap opportunities and infinite competition; and that women are trying to capture better opportunities and men are simply trying to increase the number of opportunities. ( Ergo, larger testicals for polyamorous apes and smaller testicals for dominant apes. ) There is nothing natural about*lifetime* monogamy, and everything natural about serial pairing off. The reason being *classes*. Pairing off provides Nash Optimums, just as much as markets produce Pareto Distributions. The problem with lifetime monogamy is that it evolved with and is dependent upon PROPERTY. For some people that property is part of the shared attraction (status). For others it is not so – they lack marginally sufficient productive ability to produce status signals, or to alter their sexual, social, economic, political, and military market values. Ergo we should see Power Couples at the top with lifetime marriages, affairs in the mature middle class, but preservation of lifetime monogamy, serial relationships in the lower classes. Which is what we see. One of the consequences of post industrial wealth (caused by the capture of energy) is that we can afford to pursue our preferences rather than have those preferences constrained by the previous conditions. This is what we see. We see vast exploration of preferences because we can afford to explore them (conduct research protgrams, and either succeed or fail) but at some point we have to measure the externalities produced, and that is what conservatives do…. we measure the intertemporal consequences. We are the long term ‘limiters’ that defend the gene pool – or fail to. The economic consequences of pairing off are substantial. The economic consequences of lifetime monogamy are substantial. The economic consequences of homogeneity and eugenic reproduction are substantial. In fact, they might be the most substantial. The way we restore these very-high-returns is simply *to stop funding alternatives thru redistribution* and let meritocracy reign again. That will produce families, and suppress underclass reproduction, and as a consequence produce greater wealth.