Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sex Differences

  • In the studies I have seen, the average man experiences 20% decline in the stand

    In the studies I have seen, the average man experiences 20% decline in the standard of living by trading income for sex, companionship, and residency with a woman. This amounts to the average free capital generated by all men (about 1/5). It requires about 20% free capital for humans to change ‘routines’. Men are a bit more expensive to feed, but otherwise cheaper to maintain than women. Men have a shorter working life (We accumulate the species’ cellular damage on behalf of women and children). We mature intellectually and emotionally fairly slowly in exchange for specialization. But that specialization, which can lead to superior incomes, but also leads to limited adaptability in the work force where regimentation is lacking and social fitness is required (the modern white collar work force). So for men, the problem with late maturity, specialization, and limited work life means that failures to capture higher earnings means old age poverty. Now, if the woman is working, and the couple save that 20% in equity for seven years on a 15 year mortgage they can somewhat offset the loss. Friends, good work, and an anti-depressant will offset the demand for sex, and increase a man’s ability to build a business or portfolio. Girlfriends are the most inexpensive sex you can obtain, and if rotated every 9-12 months the cost of marriage can be avoided. A woman trades her fertile years for increased income. A man trades his productive years for later term care. A working woman externalizes the cost of raising her children to the state, and by proxy to others. This is the trade that no longer exists. And it’s rather obvious what must be done about it: convert men’s short term productivity to long term savings, and permanently isolate it from attachment or taxation, as the most important investment. In other words, restore the order that has existed since the dawn of time. Common property requires common productivity, risk, and reward. Statistically speaking women are an extraordinarily privileged class.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-24 18:26:00 UTC

  • Our Brains

    Synthetic/Conflationary/Consensus/Solipsistic (integrated female brain) –vs– Analytic/Deflationary/Truth/Autistic. (compartmentalized male brain) Synthetic/Analytic : similarities vs differences Conflationary/Deflationary: summarize vs atomize Consensus/Truth : Social value bias. Solipsistic/Autistic: consequence of extremes These are consequential differences of the male and female brain extremes, with most of us functioning with a bias one side or the other from the center, and some of us at either extreme.

  • OUR BRAINS Synthetic/Conflationary/Consensus/Solipsistic (integrated female brai

    OUR BRAINS

    Synthetic/Conflationary/Consensus/Solipsistic (integrated female brain)

    –vs–

    Analytic/Deflationary/Truth/Autistic. (compartmentalized male brain)

    Synthetic/Analytic : similarities vs differences

    Conflationary/Deflationary: summarize vs atomize

    Consensus/Truth : Social value bias.

    Solipsistic/Autistic: consequence of extremes

    These are consequential differences of the male and female brain extremes, with most of us functioning with a bias one side or the other from the center, and some of us at either extreme.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-23 13:36:00 UTC

  • Our Brains

    Synthetic/Conflationary/Consensus/Solipsistic (integrated female brain) –vs– Analytic/Deflationary/Truth/Autistic. (compartmentalized male brain) Synthetic/Analytic : similarities vs differences Conflationary/Deflationary: summarize vs atomize Consensus/Truth : Social value bias. Solipsistic/Autistic: consequence of extremes These are consequential differences of the male and female brain extremes, with most of us functioning with a bias one side or the other from the center, and some of us at either extreme.

  • by Igor Rogov Sexuality may undermine productivity and lead to unfair competitiv

    by Igor Rogov Sexuality may undermine productivity and lead to unfair competitive advantage, that may undermine corporate structure. And corporate competition undermines healthy sexual relationship. The problem as I see it is in mixing two ethical systems: one of production of goods and another of sexuality. They are not entirely mutually exclusive, but certainly not fully compatible. It would be good to make proper barriers and keep them apart, but alas.

  • by Igor Rogov Sexuality may undermine productivity and lead to unfair competitiv

    by Igor Rogov

    Sexuality may undermine productivity and lead to unfair competitive advantage, that may undermine corporate structure. And corporate competition undermines healthy sexual relationship.

    The problem as I see it is in mixing two ethical systems: one of production of goods and another of sexuality. They are not entirely mutually exclusive, but certainly not fully compatible.

    It would be good to make proper barriers and keep them apart, but alas.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-22 22:10:00 UTC

  • by Igor Rogov Sexuality may undermine productivity and lead to unfair competitiv

    by Igor Rogov Sexuality may undermine productivity and lead to unfair competitive advantage, that may undermine corporate structure. And corporate competition undermines healthy sexual relationship. The problem as I see it is in mixing two ethical systems: one of production of goods and another of sexuality. They are not entirely mutually exclusive, but certainly not fully compatible. It would be good to make proper barriers and keep them apart, but alas.

  • Improper Sexual Advancement

    We are gonna’ have a very hard time overturning improper male sexual advances as a particular universal, since men evolved to act as the sexual aggressors and women the choice makers. It is very hard for a man, as your influence increases, and women pay you outsized attention, to develop the ‘sensitivity’ to whether women are seeking favors or ‘exchanges’. I think most men of power go thru this ‘learning experience’. Unfortunately (a) for some men it works (Spacey, Weinstein) (b) some men are freaking clueless (Roy Moore, and the majority who get turned in), (c) some men develop skill with it (Bill clinton, Tiger Woods, Derek Jeeter), and (d) some men develop simple avoidance (most of us). As far as I know the principle problems are acting out of your age range, and acting out of your ‘market’. Most successfully aggressive ‘play downmarket’. (And yes, our genes are readily visible and we select and sort into classes.) Now, as a world traveller, I have, and one must, come to understand that this problem is a particularly western ridiculousness. In most of the world women and men avoid opportunistic circumstances in order to prevent misinterpretation of signals (and misuse of opportunities). This is the reason for most traditions. Furthermore, that in much of the world, age differences are seen as mutually advantageous. And in history, at least our history, it was common for 10 – 15 years of difference in age, wherein a man in his thirties married a girl in her teens. Why? both possessed optimum capital for a marriage: demonstrated success at accumulating property for the man and fertility for the woman. Now, as a man who has had women throw themselves at him, despite the fact that I’m short, and nerdy, for the simple reasons of power, money and charisma, (I do not consider myself desirable). And that women regularly do this despite the fact that you’re married or in a relationship, I know that this is a two way street. The difference is that men don’t find it uncomfortable or influential in their careers and women do. Have I made unwanted advances? I think at *least* four women in my past. Did they act as if they were making advances on me? Yes to me and others that seemed the case. But no, that wasn’t the case. They wanted to obtain an advantage for themselves by association. Which is what most women do. I don’t know how we regulate female use of that tactic. It tends to have the opposite effect on me. It pissess me off. Always has. Now, the workplace is where most people seem to meet mates. At least in my companies it has always seemed like everyone was sleeping with everyone else. It’s always been a subject of management humor. And so the problem is keeping your damned hands off, and mouth shut. (What is it with women asking me to come over, drink, and have a hot bath, shower, hot tub together?). Unfortunately, just as women are subject to temporary insanity on a regular basis over hormones, men are subject to temporary insanity on a regular basis over hormones. In the past we accepted our differences and created normative institutions to mitigate them. In the present we are pursuing equality that does not seek to mitigate these differences through institutionalization but through punishment. I am not sure why the current trend won’t work. I am fairly sure that it’s competitively disadvantageous. Men must control their impulses apparently but women not. That’s my understanding of the current vernacular debate. And while men evidently possess greater physical, mental, and emotional agency than women, it is only a marginal difference. But I guess, what I would rather see is training women and men BOTH to behave via positiva rather than arbitrary prosecution post- hoc via negativa.

  • IMPROPER SEXUAL ADVANCEMENT We are gonna’ have a very hard time overturning impr

    IMPROPER SEXUAL ADVANCEMENT

    We are gonna’ have a very hard time overturning improper male sexual advances as a particular universal, since men evolved to act as the sexual aggressors and women the choice makers.

    It is very hard for a man, as your influence increases, and women pay you outsized attention, to develop the ‘sensitivity’ to whether women are seeking favors or ‘exchanges’. I think most men of power go thru this ‘learning experience’. Unfortunately (a) for some men it works (Spacey, Weinstein) (b) some men are freaking clueless (Roy Moore, and the majority who get turned in), (c) some men develop skill with it (Bill clinton, Tiger Woods, Derek Jeeter), and (d) some men develop simple avoidance (most of us). As far as I know the principle problems are acting out of your age range, and acting out of your ‘market’. Most successfully aggressive ‘play downmarket’. (And yes, our genes are readily visible and we select and sort into classes.)

    Now, as a world traveller, I have, and one must, come to understand that this problem is a particularly western ridiculousness. In most of the world women and men avoid opportunistic circumstances in order to prevent misinterpretation of signals (and misuse of opportunities). This is the reason for most traditions.

    Furthermore, that in much of the world, age differences are seen as mutually advantageous. And in history, at least our history, it was common for 10 – 15 years of difference in age, wherein a man in his thirties married a girl in her teens. Why? both possessed optimum capital for a marriage: demonstrated success at accumulating property for the man and fertility for the woman.

    Now, as a man who has had women throw themselves at him, despite the fact that I’m short, and nerdy, for the simple reasons of power, money and charisma, (I do not consider myself desirable). And that women regularly do this despite the fact that you’re married or in a relationship, I know that this is a two way street. The difference is that men don’t find it uncomfortable or influential in their careers and women do.

    Have I made unwanted advances? I think at *least* four women in my past. Did they act as if they were making advances on me? Yes to me and others that seemed the case. But no, that wasn’t the case. They wanted to obtain an advantage for themselves by association. Which is what most women do. I don’t know how we regulate female use of that tactic. It tends to have the opposite effect on me. It pissess me off. Always has.

    Now, the workplace is where most people seem to meet mates. At least in my companies it has always seemed like everyone was sleeping with everyone else. It’s always been a subject of management humor. And so the problem is keeping your damned hands off, and mouth shut. (What is it with women asking me to come over, drink, and have a hot bath, shower, hot tub together?). Unfortunately, just as women are subject to temporary insanity on a regular basis over hormones, men are subject to temporary insanity on a regular basis over hormones. In the past we accepted our differences and created normative institutions to mitigate them. In the present we are pursuing equality that does not seek to mitigate these differences through institutionalization but through punishment.

    I am not sure why the current trend won’t work. I am fairly sure that it’s competitively disadvantageous.

    Men must control their impulses apparently but women not. That’s my understanding of the current vernacular debate. And while men evidently possess greater physical, mental, and emotional agency than women, it is only a marginal difference.

    But I guess, what I would rather see is training women and men BOTH to behave via positiva rather than arbitrary prosecution post- hoc via negativa.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-22 18:46:00 UTC

  • Improper Sexual Advancement

    We are gonna’ have a very hard time overturning improper male sexual advances as a particular universal, since men evolved to act as the sexual aggressors and women the choice makers. It is very hard for a man, as your influence increases, and women pay you outsized attention, to develop the ‘sensitivity’ to whether women are seeking favors or ‘exchanges’. I think most men of power go thru this ‘learning experience’. Unfortunately (a) for some men it works (Spacey, Weinstein) (b) some men are freaking clueless (Roy Moore, and the majority who get turned in), (c) some men develop skill with it (Bill clinton, Tiger Woods, Derek Jeeter), and (d) some men develop simple avoidance (most of us). As far as I know the principle problems are acting out of your age range, and acting out of your ‘market’. Most successfully aggressive ‘play downmarket’. (And yes, our genes are readily visible and we select and sort into classes.) Now, as a world traveller, I have, and one must, come to understand that this problem is a particularly western ridiculousness. In most of the world women and men avoid opportunistic circumstances in order to prevent misinterpretation of signals (and misuse of opportunities). This is the reason for most traditions. Furthermore, that in much of the world, age differences are seen as mutually advantageous. And in history, at least our history, it was common for 10 – 15 years of difference in age, wherein a man in his thirties married a girl in her teens. Why? both possessed optimum capital for a marriage: demonstrated success at accumulating property for the man and fertility for the woman. Now, as a man who has had women throw themselves at him, despite the fact that I’m short, and nerdy, for the simple reasons of power, money and charisma, (I do not consider myself desirable). And that women regularly do this despite the fact that you’re married or in a relationship, I know that this is a two way street. The difference is that men don’t find it uncomfortable or influential in their careers and women do. Have I made unwanted advances? I think at *least* four women in my past. Did they act as if they were making advances on me? Yes to me and others that seemed the case. But no, that wasn’t the case. They wanted to obtain an advantage for themselves by association. Which is what most women do. I don’t know how we regulate female use of that tactic. It tends to have the opposite effect on me. It pissess me off. Always has. Now, the workplace is where most people seem to meet mates. At least in my companies it has always seemed like everyone was sleeping with everyone else. It’s always been a subject of management humor. And so the problem is keeping your damned hands off, and mouth shut. (What is it with women asking me to come over, drink, and have a hot bath, shower, hot tub together?). Unfortunately, just as women are subject to temporary insanity on a regular basis over hormones, men are subject to temporary insanity on a regular basis over hormones. In the past we accepted our differences and created normative institutions to mitigate them. In the present we are pursuing equality that does not seek to mitigate these differences through institutionalization but through punishment. I am not sure why the current trend won’t work. I am fairly sure that it’s competitively disadvantageous. Men must control their impulses apparently but women not. That’s my understanding of the current vernacular debate. And while men evidently possess greater physical, mental, and emotional agency than women, it is only a marginal difference. But I guess, what I would rather see is training women and men BOTH to behave via positiva rather than arbitrary prosecution post- hoc via negativa.