Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sex Differences

  • “ITS YOUR BODY BUT THIS IS MY POLITY Just as women say ‘it’s my body’ men need t

    “ITS YOUR BODY BUT THIS IS MY POLITY

    Just as women say ‘it’s my body’ men need to say ‘it’s my polity’. Because that’s the end of the story right there. Reproductively, that’s the story in a nutshell.

    So men make women a deal: it’s your body, and children are yours, only as long politics and war are ours. Because it is that compromise (trade) that makes possible the differences in our reproductive strategies. The alternative is that it’s not your body and it’s still our polity. Because in the end, only men choose.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-08 10:10:00 UTC

  • WOMEN NEED TO PUT THEIR CARTAKING SOMEWHERE (CHILDREN) OR EVERYWHERE ELSE THEY P

    WOMEN NEED TO PUT THEIR CARTAKING SOMEWHERE (CHILDREN) OR EVERYWHERE ELSE THEY PUT IT CREATES BADNESS

    This should be obvious. But depression in women is directly proportional to gender equality. Poor women working together with children are always happier and less depressed than professional women without children.

    Men have heroism and the dominance hierarchy to direct our violence and competitiveness to hunting, craftsmanship, business, politics and war.

    Women have only children. And when that caretaking is put to political ends it destroys meritocracy and creates dysgenia at no cost to the women who cause it.

    Just as women say ‘it’s my body’ men need to say ‘it’s my polity’. Because that’s the end of the story right there. Reproductively, that’s the story in a nutshell.

    —“Similar results are found in studies of personal values, including values related to altruism and love. In a study of 127 samples in 70 countries (N = 77,528; Schwartz & Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009) women attribute consistently more importance than men do to benevolence and universalism values. National measures of gender egalitarianism predicted sex differences in benevolence and universalism values but, once again, in an unexpected direction. The greater the social, health, and employment equality of women and men in a country…the larger the sex differences (women higher) in benevolence and universalism values. That is, in countries with greater gender equity (e.g., Finland, Sweden), women attribute substantially more importance to benevolence and universalism values than men do. In more patriarchal cultures, sex differences in benevolence and universalism and much smaller. The authors of the values study speculate that increased independence and equality of women in the labor force may encourage women to express their “inherent” values rather than to accommodate their values to those of their husbands. Maybe.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-08 10:08:00 UTC

  • GENDERS: HOW ACCURATE IS THE r/K-SELECTION ANALOGY? —“some people are saying r

    GENDERS: HOW ACCURATE IS THE r/K-SELECTION ANALOGY?

    —“some people are saying r/K selection doesn’t apply to humans because we are just on a spectrum of K.”— A Friend

    (I am going to … suppress my urge to point out just how stupid it is to assume reproductive strategies are binary rather than graduated. … I want to smack people who run around confusing an analogy, describing theoretic observations, with an axiomatic statement. sigh…. Now, on to an explanation. )

    I think all of us know that r/K isn’t a binary system. But the fact that the female intuition and the underclass strategy mirrors r-selection (numbers) and the male intuition and upper class strategies mirror k-selection is a useful point for illustrating the different moral and cognitive biases of male and females that we see expressed in all walks of life, including voting patterns.

    I mean, I take it for granted everyone knows that when you select for neoteny you get decreasing dimorphism, and less exaggerated differences between the male and the female. Largely by domesticating the male (aggression) in both genders.

    WE ARE ALL A BLEND OF TRAITS.

    All five (six) major human personality factors(traits) (including intelligence) are marginally indifferent between the genders, but the expressions of these major personality traits in the corresponding ten(twelve) sub-traits differs greatly between the genders in stereotypical ways – just what you would expect.

    So we are all either more masculine or more feminine – which is observable in facial features and body types. (feminine/gracile, masculine/massive). And the greater the level of domestication (neotonic selection) the more likely we will create gender issues and start seeing ill effects in both genders. Hence the necessity for replacing genetic influence with developmental influence (training) so that we produce less ‘conflict’. (Hence why jewish men all seem ‘gay’ and we think (correctly) that those with more heavy features (bigger jaws, bigger noses, bigger brows, darker and more even hair and eye coloring, curlier hair) are more primitive. (‘Cause they are.) I mean. i say this as a guy with an ‘atlantic’ barrel chest, very wavy hair, lots of body hair, despite my rather gracile features, temperament, blue eyes and light brown hair.

    TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING

    Now, you can have too much of a good thing. The east asians have taken it too far (less so the japanese). So, lIke I say frequently; I am pretty sure that we passed peak human. The point at which no further neoteny is valuable. And instead, the problem is culling the lower classes. And I would suggest that the aryans were pretty much ‘peak human’ at their time, and the Dutch prior to the 19th century were pretty much modern peak human. And that we have mostly seen decline since then, leaving the white russians and the ukrainians and the poles and the north germans peak human. IMHO the Finns are not far off the mark today just not as advanced as the Dutch were (or the norman aristocracy). (Much to the chagrin of the rest of the world, turns out that the tall, gracile, blonde, big round head, thing is right. Genetically superior, with an even distribution of verbal and spatial intelligence. )

    REVERSAL

    Hopefully, it seems that we might have been saved by science this time, despite losing 100 YEARS!!!! to marxist, feminist, postmodernist deceit, pseudoscience, and pseudorationalism.

    if so, we can prevent the second dark age caused by abrahamism: the art of lying through massive repetition.

    You wonder why prayer and chanting prayer works? Same reason abrahamic lying works.

    Repetition.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-07 14:08:00 UTC

  • “Women as a group are systemically discriminated against – both openly and subco

    —“Women as a group are systemically discriminated against – both openly and subconsciously – and their lives are poorer for it.”—

    Women display unconscious bias. Men display unconscious bias. Women display personality trait biases. Mental illness biases. Aesthetic biases. Temporal value biases. Friendship biases. Lower tolerance for diversity in friends. Lower loyalty in business. higher likelihood of being an undesirable manager. More likely to undermine other women in business. As likely as men in sociopathy. Far higher rates of mental illness. Women disapprove of far more than men disapprove of in every walk of life. Women display an array of cognitive biases, and we might venture that the entire world is worse for it. Women display voting biases consistently differently from men. Are not men systematically discriminated against? In what walks of life are men not systematically discriminated against by women? How long does it take to trust someone? How long for a man to trust a man, a man to trust a woman, a woman to trust a woman, and a woman to trust a man? Why are those rates different?

    How about this: we worry about whether things are TRUE and then fix what is wrong with people, rather than pretend that stereotypes are not the most accurate reprsentation of behavioral data on earth?

    True is true is true is true.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-05 18:46:00 UTC

  • WHY DID PEOPLE RESIST GAY MARRIAGE? I think people fought against homosexuality

    WHY DID PEOPLE RESIST GAY MARRIAGE?

    I think people fought against homosexuality for the following reasons:

    (a) marriage in public prohibits interference which causes high rates of male violence, often resulting in death, the consequences of which export vast cascading costs onto the polity – trust being one of the most important.

    (b) marriage in public asks warranty of non-interference in the marriage and family as a means of preventing the moral hazard of the public carrying the cost of broken families.

    (c) Homosexuality invokes a disgust response in many (very many) people, not the least of which because we do not want to increase ‘marginal cases’.

    (d) homosexuality is of negative evolutionary, familial, value other than labor, and so why does the public need to insure it by means of marriage?

    (e) Without offspring they could signal hyperconsumption more easily, and with two incomes they could signal hyperconsumption more easily

    (f) homosexuals by hyperconsumption, sexual signaling, promiscuity, have demonstrated precisely the public behaviors that we have spent thousands of years removing from the public – precisely so that we could limit risk of violating the marriage and family as means of limiting the export of costs.

    (g) It certainly appears that given all of us contain masculine and feminine traits, and that while in-utero homosexuality is merely a birth defect, various forms of mental illness can result from developmental issues such as bulimia, anorexia, sexual identity, issues. In other words, ‘gender preference’ appears to be, like anorexia and bulimia, a developmental disorder easily corrected by constant exposure to norms. (and therefore without loss of genetic persistence,)

    (h) Genetically (and economically) non-reproducing people who are capable of productivity and self financing of reproduction are dead weight on civilization.

    So externalities are the cause of marriage. homoxexuality does not require the institution of marriage: a corporation for the pooling of assets by which intergenerational reproduction, ‘financing’ and ‘insurance’ are provided.

    Instead homoseuality requires only the formation of a partnership, and universal power of attorney. This is the only legal content of the marriage.

    The question remains whether homosexuals can produced offspring in equal or not worse quality to hterosexuals and the money is against them. Not because some cannot. But because there are too many who cannot.

    So we are running an experiment. I have no idea how it will play out.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 10:00:00 UTC

  • How do we play this? Use of actresses and models is one way we are undermined. B

    How do we play this?

    Use of actresses and models is one way we are undermined.

    But if you look at WAG’s that’s an empirical market.

    It’s not open to manipulation.

    If you look at WAGS you find something very different from actresses and models. You find real women you would want to be married to.

    How do we redirect “Fandom” to WAGS (who are far better looking and of better character than the models and actresses).

    IN other words, how do we increase the returns for real people, marriage/WAGS and decrease the value of individual artificial products?

    how do we increase the status of market demonstrated excellence (wags) and decrease the status of artificial products?

    It seems pretty easy to me.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-03 14:38:00 UTC

  • CURT: DISTURBING SEXISM??? —“You display disturbing signs of sexism.”— (A fr

    CURT: DISTURBING SEXISM???

    —“You display disturbing signs of sexism.”— (A friend)

    (A comment from an otherwise obviously rational and scientific woman)

    Great observation and great opportunity to repeat a central theme: compatibility and the need for markets in everything.

    I’m going to suggest this instead: I display CONSISTENT criticism of the female gender biases given the evidence, in matters of politics and reason. (And I display consistent submission to female superiority in interpersonal matters.)

    Sexism. So, why?

    It’s because I advocate compatibilism rather than equality. And because the ratio of men to women in psychosis-to-solipsism vs rationalism-to-autism remains consistent in every single sampling from the behavior of female and male psychopaths, to the difference between male openness to pure ideas, and female openness to aesthetics, to the male concern for the best and female strong for the weakest, to the male concern for excellence to the female concern for equality, the the competence of females in interpersonal skill to the male competence in political skill.

    There is literally no domain where compatibilism is not more evident than equality. Even in intelligence testing we had to lower the standard by increasing weights to verbal acumen. I mean. yo have’t been following me long enough so you haven’t seen my frequent ‘how the heck do women do that amazing stuff’.

    So since NEITHER gender can satisfy the demand for perception, cognition, knowledge, specialization, negotiation, and advocacy, then the only way to ‘calculate’ (rendered commensurable) our division of cognitive labor is through voluntary exchange. And it is marriage that creates an informationally complete market for the use of the division of perception.

    Now, I have written about this reproductive (short-child, vs long-tribe) division of cognitive labor. I have written about (and produced a video about) the classes as an extension of this temporal division of labor to the circumpolar people (white people and chinese people).

    So I consider my ‘intertemporal division of cognitive labor’ concept covered. And I consider my ‘markets in everything’ to take advantage of our temporal specializations covered. And I am currently working on a constitution that denies equality and expressly RESTORES western ‘markets in everything’. With the principle difference that I’ve used testimonialism to eliminate the ability to even TALK about falsehoods and deceptions in public matters by extending fraud protections from goods and services to information (speech).

    Now, I expect this solution that forces compromises to be LESS acceptable to women for the simple reason – mirrored by prison populations – that women ‘steal’ and ‘cheat’ the dominance hierarchy asymmetrically in favor of ridicule, shaming, gossip (suggestion), obscurantism, and advocacy of fictionalism (social construction of artificial realities) far more so than do men – even if men are the minority of practitioners and but the nearly exclusive producers (outside of feminists). And I make this case because as we can see, women have been, in almost all cases, domesticated animals herded by men, since the beginning of man, just like most other mammalian species.

    And women have been the vehicle for the spreading of attractive lies in the ancient world (abrahamism) and the modern world (postmodernism). So the solution to the subjugation of women CANNOT be equality, but can ONLY be markets (trade). Men are not CAPABLE of the information processing and adaptability to local circumstances as are women, and women are not CAPABLE of reason in advancement of excellence (eugenics) in politics. I mean, it is almost impossible to find women who are not so lacking agency because of their solipsism that one can have a scientific conversation. I mean, I have women followers here and most of them know this by now. You just don’t know it.

    So I remain on the attack against the falsehoods of equality and in advocacy of the science, and that is the only equality between any of us is that which is achieved by the market, and those who cannot succeed in that market provide evidence of their need of ‘pruning’ from the gene pool (error reduction), and the only market means of ‘pruning’ is the elimination of reproduction for those people, and the prevention of immigration of those people. Unfortunately, it’s women who produce dysgenic offspring. Men can’t. They can only more easily DEMONSTRATE that their genes are failures.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-03 08:59:00 UTC

  • I always wonder why we say “economic left, and economic right”, when what we can

    I always wonder why we say “economic left, and economic right”, when what we can only possibly mean over any long term is Dysgenic Left and Eugenic Right.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 19:19:00 UTC

  • Why are men more violent than women? (Stupid question). Why do women have more c

    Why are men more violent than women? (Stupid question). Why do women have more children than men? (Stupid for the same reason.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 18:04:00 UTC

  • WOMEN AND REPRODUCTION It’s just data. In middle occupations, because women are

    WOMEN AND REPRODUCTION

    It’s just data.

    In middle occupations, because women are more adaptable to changes in social circumstances (even if men are more adaptable to changes in technical and military circumstances), and given that as in any distribution, only a small number of women are genetically ‘worthy’ of reproduction (as are men), the economic value of women is higher than their reproductive value.

    A woman can only birth so many children, and is only willing to undergo the physical costs of it. And can only bear the effort of raising so many children unless spaced enough apart that they raise those younger than them (which appears to be the best education possible). This means the most able women are least incentivized to reproduce and the least able women are most incentivized to reproduce.

    This means that women are of more value in productivity than they are in maintaining replacement birth rates.

    Women are the weak link in the chain of reproduction. They choose poorly. Their in-utero variation creates defects. They overinvest in underperformance. And they reproduce dysgenically.

    If our choices are to coerce them back in the home, or to alleviate the burden of reproduction for the best, then it seems that if the technological solution is possible it is desirable. Although, I cannot see it being more ‘inexpensive’ than the traditional method, even if produced at consumer scale.

    I mean, If I could raise six sons without a woman… imagine what that would look like? I mean, men would signal by breeding their own clans….. Modernity is not good for men. And breeding a clan and obviating the need for women except as entertainment is interesting.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 10:28:00 UTC