Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sex Differences

  • WORLD NEOTONIC SELECTION RESULTS Some white women are better than all other woma

    WORLD NEOTONIC SELECTION RESULTS

    Some white women are better than all other woman. Many east asian women are better than all the remaining women. Some (white) indian women are better than all the remaining women. After that it’s a random distribution. The problem is that the undomesticated peoples have too little neotonic selection. White people have probably peaked with a balance tilting male. Slavic have peaked with a balance tilting female. And the east asians have passed the peak and taken it too far so that not enough ‘male’ remains. This is slightly beneficial for their women and punitive for their men. Unfortunately, while men favor selection for neoteny, women do NOT. And women’s selection preference is regressive (recidivist).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 09:41:00 UTC

  • TRANSHUMANISM I have no idea what that means, but if you mean ‘increasing rates

    TRANSHUMANISM

    I have no idea what that means, but if you mean ‘increasing rates of reproduction of demonstrably superior genetic expressions, and decreasing rates of reproduction of demonstrably inferior genetic expressions’ then I understand that.

    If you mean hubristic attempts to create superior genetic combinations rather than remove failed genetic combinations I think you’re either an idiot or dangerous or both.

    If in addition you mean device-augmentation on the lines of wearing glasses and earplugs that overlay reality and dramatically increase our information availability, or suits that augment our physical abilities, then I understand that.

    If you mean dependency-adaptation to permanent mechanical augmentation then I think you’re both mentally disturbed and dangerous.

    If you mean incrementally adding (a) superior lactose processing, (b) longer telomeres, (c) heart and lung capacity, (d) increasing white matter capacity, (e) immune and inflammatory system correction and such, even if it means experimenting on human genomes with pruned brains, then I think that is ok.

    ‘Wet’ systems are superior to ‘Dry’ systems. Humans are incredibly energy efficient creatures given their size, speed, adaptability, and processing power. I can see the value of both purely wet and purely dry systems. But it is very hard to imagine that the consequences are not terrible if we do not seek self replication of wet systems in planetary and dry systems in interplanetary systems, and if we avoid at all costs the interdependence of the two. Life goes on. making it more fragile is not helping it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 09:35:00 UTC

  • THE POLITICAL DANGER OF UNDOMESTICATED WOMEN OUTWEIGHS THEIR VALUE. WE HAVE A LO

    THE POLITICAL DANGER OF UNDOMESTICATED WOMEN OUTWEIGHS THEIR VALUE. WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO.

    1) Christianity(Aristocracy and Reason are Evil) in the ancient and Medieval world, Marxism-Socialism(Meritocracy is Evil) in the early 20th century, Postmodernism (There is no truth) in the mid-to-late twentieth century, and Political Correctness (Truth Suppression), were invented by men and spread primarily through the gossip of women. In other words, women are easy customers for comforting lies.

    2) All advancement in civilization – the vast majority of which has benefitted women far more so than men (especially today where men commit suicide in large numbers after fifty years of age) has required the incremental production of property and accountability, particularly in the institution of marriage, which limits a woman from exporting the cost of her impulsive need for reproduction and nesting and caring for children regardless of their merit, onto the rest of the community. (Mothers of serial killers are the prime example of women’s denial – they are usually the cause and rarely believe their children capable, nor admit that it is they who caused it.)

    3) It has been equally hard to civilize women because of their need for denial of truth, their use of gossip, shaming, rallying, and deceit, and their hyperconsumption whenever possible. We can punish men’s violence but it is very hard to punish women’s gossip, shaming, ridicule, rallying and deceit. In part because it is largely invisible to men.

    4) Even today, if not for women’s votes, hitler would never have come to power, Johnson’s disastrous Great Society would never have come to power and Kennedy would not have been elected, the financing of marxist/postmodern/feminist pseudosciences and the near total destruction of the social science would not have been possible – and our current invasion by the third world would not be possible.

    5) So it is very hard to argue that women are not, as was judged by most of history, an army of Pandoras constantly opening the box of horrors on this world, the chief horror of which is the increase in conflict among men. The solution to which was property, family, family economic responsibility, tribal legal accountability, and nationhood’s military accountability.

    6) How do we know this? The single source for the overwhelming majority of male violence is women. So much so that all else pales by comparison.

    7) Our success in domesticating men has not been equal in domesticating women. Primarily because men reason but are visibly dangerous, and women do not reason, but are insidiously dangerous.

    This is the lesson of history.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 09:32:00 UTC

  • you know when a bunch of chicks get together and talk about he said she said? th

    you know when a bunch of chicks get together and talk about he said she said? then another group says the same thing but saying its right or wrong but simply give their feelings about it? then another group says ‘well if everyone did that” (the categorical imperative). And then another group says ‘well, you know, we tried that in 1950s”. And then another group says ‘well, statistically it looks like this’. And then another group says “well, this is the set of options available to them at the time, and this is what their incentives were so that is what they chose because they had only those choices”.

    That’s what I mean by arguing by moral intuition.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 12:44:00 UTC

  • HARRIS VS PETERSON IN INTELLIGENCE I would like say something politically incorr

    HARRIS VS PETERSON IN INTELLIGENCE

    I would like say something politically incorrect, so if you’ll forgive me I’ll suggest this: is that peterson is a pretty common northern european demonstrating pretty common northern european modeling skills and ‘awareness of the pack’ – or european ‘formation-thought’, whereas Harris is a pretty common ashkenazi demonstrating pretty common verbal and personal awareness skills. And that two people with relatively similar degrees of intelligence (just as in men and women) will tend to master those forms of inquiry and analysis with which they are genetically dominant. There is a reason for example for the distribution of northern european directors and jewish writers. Just as there is a reason for the distribution of east asian engineers and ashkenazi lawyers. And there is a good reason for the asymmetric distribution of western artists and the near absence of ashkenazi arts. Just as, at least in the personality trait of openness (intellectual curiosity) women favor aesthetics and men favor ideas. If you examine the traits of different peoples around the world, most of our differences are reducible to (a) the degree of Neotonic (paedomorphic) selection (domestication), and (b) the distribution of what we consider gender traits between the genders.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-26 12:36:00 UTC

  • Men are more confident in their knowledge than women. Women are more confident i

    Men are more confident in their knowledge than women. Women are more confident in their opinions than knowledge.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-26 12:08:00 UTC

  • “Women are made to be loved but they do not seem to know it.”—Francesco Princi

    —“Women are made to be loved but they do not seem to know it.”—Francesco Principi

    (they are too much social climbers and impulsive nesters. never happy with the status quo. always seeking more. men seek an equilibrium that they can tolerate physically, emotionally, and intellectually. women only seek an equilibrium they can tolerate emotionally. The reason being that they can call upon the resources of men to climb. Men are happy when we discover and hold our place in the hierarchy. Women will always seek to climb it. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-26 10:40:00 UTC

  • FEELING VS KNOWING – THE GREAT GENDER DIVIDE A man’s first instinct is to questi

    FEELING VS KNOWING – THE GREAT GENDER DIVIDE

    A man’s first instinct is to question whether something is true. A woman’s first instinct is to question whether something is desirable. A man’s first instinct is to describe a distribution. A woman’s first instinct is to describe a uniformity. A man’s first instinct is to question whether someone will obtain a valuable advantage. A woman’s first instinct is to question whether someone’s being left behind. In the main, without extraordinary training, women are of zero or negative value in politics for these reasons. They will weaken and destroy a polity. Why? Because women evolved to pre-rationally intuit to a degree we call ‘panic’ whether her offspring will be left behind by the needs of the tribe. And women are less able to disconnect the emotional from the rational in matters political. Women simply possess less agency. And if they didn’t, we wouldn’t exist today.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-26 09:09:00 UTC

  • I mean, it seems like british women are trying to out trailer-park Americans. I

    I mean, it seems like british women are trying to out trailer-park Americans. I can understand not even TRYING to compete with French women, and I can see raising the art of working-class ‘unkempt’ to a virtue signal. But what is going on over there across the pond? Makes the vast trailer park we call Los Angeles look the an Etiquette Academy.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-25 17:40:00 UTC

  • ACQUISITIONISM: BIG 5 – AGREEABLENESS —“Low time preference (likeable now) ove

    ACQUISITIONISM: BIG 5 – AGREEABLENESS

    —“Low time preference (likeable now) over high time preference (respected later)”— Bill Joslin

    —“Female submission(now) rather than male dominance(later).”— Moritz Bierling

    —“Agreeableness – priority on social capital (property type) – low cost (persuasion-manipulation; likeability – superficial) over high cost (merit-reputation; complex, honesty, trustworthy, reliable) – skew to create-aquire (likeability) over preservation (reputation)”— Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-24 16:01:00 UTC