Mar 12, 2020, 12:35 PM THE NEED FOR THREE GRAMMARS: EMPATHIC, RATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, UNITED BY TRUTH AND RECIPROCITY ( Rik Storey Yes, I understand the Distributist. I understand you.) I understand the search for supernatural theology in theological terms (submission). I understand the search for secular theology in philosophical (cooperation, exchange). I just also understand the search for transcendence in fact by scientific, technological, institutional, and informational means (dominance). I understand the desire for the feminine, for the libertarian, and for the masculine. And I understand that the behaviors of these three emotional(feminine), rational(compromise), and scientific(masculine) methods are reflections of our degrees of agency over emotion, reason, and action, of ourselves, those near us, and the polity. And I have, I think, understood that these three paradigms, vocabulary, logics (Grammars) reflect our interest, willingness and ability to take on increasing scope of material responsibility, and conversely, the reflection of our preference for, willingness, and ability to go along with the herd in peaceful (non-conflict, non adversarial, agreable ) to unpeaceful(conflict, adversarial, disagreeable) means. And I understand how this spectrum of feminine to masculine strategies is merely a reflection of differences in sexual dimorphism, brain structure, body chemistry, class, indoctrination, training, and skill. And I understand that all three are necessary to prevent the horrors of ignorance and dysgenics and decline under abrahamic or any other monopoly. And I understand the externalities of the feminine(submission, empathic), compromise(exchange,rational), and masculine(dominance, scientific). And I understand the market for elites in all three of these, and the change in the power of elites given changes in demographic composition, economic composition, and strategic and military composition. And I understand that preserving the market for elites and their grammars (paradigms, vocabularies, logics), provides both the most aggressive (male), most adaptive(compromise), and the most regressive (female), and that these three markets keep one another in check. And I understand that via positiva feminine (organize on the positive by emotional myth), via practica in the ascendent male (organize on compromise, cooperation, production by contract), and the via negativa masculine (organize limits by law and war) are not in disharmony or conflict as long as they are relegated (LIMITED) to their domains of CAPABILITY, share the natural law. And that indoctrination (emotional children), training (rational young), and education (scientific adults), just like the ethics of rules, of values, and of outcomes, and the family, society, and polity, all consist of rules of scale. And that all of us are evolved to divide the labor of generating demand for some portion of the temporal and scale spectrums between mothers and children in consumption, brothers in trade, and headmen polity and limits. And that the reason we have developed different grammars is to provide each of us with the most precise tools of calculating thought word and deed, in our spectrum of the division of temporal labor and scale. How do I eliminate the abrahamic method of deceit, and make possible a constant set of grammars from theological(non-conflict and consumption ) to philosophical(competition and contract and production) to scientific(conflcit law and war)? This is the issue. Religion is necessary. A submissive religion may be necessary for the agreeable and feminine brain structure, strategy, and class. A secular religion may suffice – which is what the distributist and the continentals are searching for. My understanding is that there are true religions and false. And that there is no need for a false religion. And that is what I am searching for. No falsehood.
Theme: Truth
-
Dialogic Over Dialectic
Mar 12, 2020, 6:28 PM
—“Philosophically the successful paradigm was/is realism, naturalism, dualism, empiricism, virtue ethics. Truth being the thing IS itself and rejecting the thing IN itself. Dialogic over dialectic.”—Andrew M Gilmour
-
Dialogic Over Dialectic
Mar 12, 2020, 6:28 PM
—“Philosophically the successful paradigm was/is realism, naturalism, dualism, empiricism, virtue ethics. Truth being the thing IS itself and rejecting the thing IN itself. Dialogic over dialectic.”—Andrew M Gilmour
-
Philosophy vs Law vs Science vs P-Law – End the Century of Pseudoscience and Lie
Philosophy vs Law vs Science vs P-Law – End the Century of Pseudoscience and Lies https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/philosophy-vs-law-vs-science-vs-p-law-end-the-century-of-pseudoscience-and-lies/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 22:53:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266140677253013504
-
Philosophy vs Law vs Science vs P-Law – End the Century of Pseudoscience and Lies
Mar 16, 2020, 1:27 PM Philosophy presumes the positive, and asks whether questions are true or false, and preferable or good, or not. We call this ‘justification” benevolently, and ‘excuse making’ pejoratively. Law presumes the negative – erroneous, dishonest, or fraudulent – and asks whether questions are testifiable or untestifiable, and whether reciprocal and warrantable or not. We call this ‘falsification’ in the technical, or ‘survival’ from prosecution in the practical. Philosophy considers lying an act of intention. The Law considers lying (or any irreciprocity) a failure of due diligence regardless of intention. Science differs from Law only in Science’s defense of the informational commons from false testimony by scientists. Our solution unites Science with Law in defense of the informational commons, regardless of who testifies (speaks), and the manner in which he speaks (spoken, written, media) – and regardless of what he testifies to, when he testifies in public to the public about matters public: whenever he makes or implies a truth or moral claim. We can end the century and a half of pseudoscience, sophistry, and lies by the false promise of freedom from physical laws of nature, the natural law of cooperation, and the evolutionary law of transcendence: marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism. And it’s far easier than you’d think. Because we don’t need to know if a claim is true or not, just whether it is testifiable, reciprocal, evolutionary, warrantable, restitutable or not. P-Law, The Formal, Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity of the European Peoples.
NOTES: 1 – Philosophy, Science, Law: the discipline as demonstrated by the behavior of members of the discipline.
-
Philosophy vs Law vs Science vs P-Law – End the Century of Pseudoscience and Lies
Mar 16, 2020, 1:27 PM Philosophy presumes the positive, and asks whether questions are true or false, and preferable or good, or not. We call this ‘justification” benevolently, and ‘excuse making’ pejoratively. Law presumes the negative – erroneous, dishonest, or fraudulent – and asks whether questions are testifiable or untestifiable, and whether reciprocal and warrantable or not. We call this ‘falsification’ in the technical, or ‘survival’ from prosecution in the practical. Philosophy considers lying an act of intention. The Law considers lying (or any irreciprocity) a failure of due diligence regardless of intention. Science differs from Law only in Science’s defense of the informational commons from false testimony by scientists. Our solution unites Science with Law in defense of the informational commons, regardless of who testifies (speaks), and the manner in which he speaks (spoken, written, media) – and regardless of what he testifies to, when he testifies in public to the public about matters public: whenever he makes or implies a truth or moral claim. We can end the century and a half of pseudoscience, sophistry, and lies by the false promise of freedom from physical laws of nature, the natural law of cooperation, and the evolutionary law of transcendence: marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism. And it’s far easier than you’d think. Because we don’t need to know if a claim is true or not, just whether it is testifiable, reciprocal, evolutionary, warrantable, restitutable or not. P-Law, The Formal, Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity of the European Peoples.
NOTES: 1 – Philosophy, Science, Law: the discipline as demonstrated by the behavior of members of the discipline.
-
Why Does the Left Have to Lie and Deny Differences?
Mar 18, 2020, 12:39 PM The Left= Female Conflict Strategy: Deny, Avoid, Substitute Approval for Truth, Justify, Use Sophistry, Ad Hominem(gsrrm), Rally, Undermine, Strawman, Bait Into Conflict, Bait Into Hazard, Free Ride, Rent Seek, Hyperconsumption, Hypergamy, “Unconscious: The Men Will Take Care of It” The left has to lie. WHY? The suite of programs we have seen in marxism, communism, socialism, Neo-Marxism(cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, hbd-denialism(political correctness) are an attempt to undermine every single system of class and gender harmony in tripartite western civilization from within by the false promise of freedom from evolutionary pressures (Darwin), under the pretense that admittedly meritocratic and eugenic western civlization oppressed rather than incrementally domesticated ourselves. And that this strategy – the cause of our successes – is antithetical to the female reproductive strategy, female cognition, and the female group strategy of intellectuals behind marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and HBD-Denialism. We enfranchised this hostile intellectual group, and women at roughly the same time, and gave elites at practicing the female group strategy, and an audience of easily deceived newly enfranchised females, on top of our traditional underclasses, a market to ply with 51% of the vote, 70% of consumption of government services, and 70% of consumer spending. And we did not give them time to integrate into the franchise, rule of law, meritocracy, and to absorb the shock, before the postwar campaign to undermine western civlization through them. Marxism, postmodernism, feminism together are just a repeated of judaism, christianity islam to undermine the aristocratic empires of the ancient world. And we saw the loss of the arts, letters, culture, civilization and genomes of five great civilizations civilization reduced to dysgenia, decline, regression, ignorance, and superstition. The female group conflict strategy? ie: bait others into conflict.
1. Feminine Undermining: Interpersonal and Social Superpredators 2. Female advocacy strategy: “heaping undue praise”, give everyone a prize, giving false compliments. 3. Female Conflict Strategy: disapproval, shaming, ridicule, rallying, gossiping, straw manning, and reputation destruction without end (destruction). 4. Female anti-social behavior: promiscuity, impulsivity, drugs, alcohol, lying, needling, conflict generation, attention seeking, shrilling, outraging. 5. Female Technique: Seduction: False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard.
—“Using False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard, Advocated by Pilpul, Defended by Critique, Escaping Liability and Warranty; By Pretense of Plausible Deniability; Despite Deliberate Avoidance of Due Diligence, And Deliberate Evasion of Warranty, Deliberate Escape From Liability, Given the Asymmetry of Knowledge, the Presence of Malincentives by both Agent(s) and Victim(s); And Pursued for the Purpose of Attention, Reward (profit), Influence(power), And Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict, And Generating Demand for Authority to Control by the Hazard Maker.”— False promise of freedom from low status and agency. False promise of ability to rule and develop agency. Destruction of civlization culture, arts, knowledge, traditions. The repeat of the christian destruction of the ancient world. Through women and slaves in the old world. Through women and immigrants in the new world. If not for immigrants we would have defeated them. Democracy by 92 Intelligence differences by 99 Gender differences by 12 Group differences in 19 Science would have won. They won by the immigration act. Not by ideas. The romans were too tolerant. So are we. The only way to defeat a social superpredator is with a physical superpredator.
-
Why Does the Left Have to Lie and Deny Differences?
Mar 18, 2020, 12:39 PM The Left= Female Conflict Strategy: Deny, Avoid, Substitute Approval for Truth, Justify, Use Sophistry, Ad Hominem(gsrrm), Rally, Undermine, Strawman, Bait Into Conflict, Bait Into Hazard, Free Ride, Rent Seek, Hyperconsumption, Hypergamy, “Unconscious: The Men Will Take Care of It” The left has to lie. WHY? The suite of programs we have seen in marxism, communism, socialism, Neo-Marxism(cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, hbd-denialism(political correctness) are an attempt to undermine every single system of class and gender harmony in tripartite western civilization from within by the false promise of freedom from evolutionary pressures (Darwin), under the pretense that admittedly meritocratic and eugenic western civlization oppressed rather than incrementally domesticated ourselves. And that this strategy – the cause of our successes – is antithetical to the female reproductive strategy, female cognition, and the female group strategy of intellectuals behind marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and HBD-Denialism. We enfranchised this hostile intellectual group, and women at roughly the same time, and gave elites at practicing the female group strategy, and an audience of easily deceived newly enfranchised females, on top of our traditional underclasses, a market to ply with 51% of the vote, 70% of consumption of government services, and 70% of consumer spending. And we did not give them time to integrate into the franchise, rule of law, meritocracy, and to absorb the shock, before the postwar campaign to undermine western civlization through them. Marxism, postmodernism, feminism together are just a repeated of judaism, christianity islam to undermine the aristocratic empires of the ancient world. And we saw the loss of the arts, letters, culture, civilization and genomes of five great civilizations civilization reduced to dysgenia, decline, regression, ignorance, and superstition. The female group conflict strategy? ie: bait others into conflict.
1. Feminine Undermining: Interpersonal and Social Superpredators 2. Female advocacy strategy: “heaping undue praise”, give everyone a prize, giving false compliments. 3. Female Conflict Strategy: disapproval, shaming, ridicule, rallying, gossiping, straw manning, and reputation destruction without end (destruction). 4. Female anti-social behavior: promiscuity, impulsivity, drugs, alcohol, lying, needling, conflict generation, attention seeking, shrilling, outraging. 5. Female Technique: Seduction: False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard.
—“Using False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard, Advocated by Pilpul, Defended by Critique, Escaping Liability and Warranty; By Pretense of Plausible Deniability; Despite Deliberate Avoidance of Due Diligence, And Deliberate Evasion of Warranty, Deliberate Escape From Liability, Given the Asymmetry of Knowledge, the Presence of Malincentives by both Agent(s) and Victim(s); And Pursued for the Purpose of Attention, Reward (profit), Influence(power), And Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict, And Generating Demand for Authority to Control by the Hazard Maker.”— False promise of freedom from low status and agency. False promise of ability to rule and develop agency. Destruction of civlization culture, arts, knowledge, traditions. The repeat of the christian destruction of the ancient world. Through women and slaves in the old world. Through women and immigrants in the new world. If not for immigrants we would have defeated them. Democracy by 92 Intelligence differences by 99 Gender differences by 12 Group differences in 19 Science would have won. They won by the immigration act. Not by ideas. The romans were too tolerant. So are we. The only way to defeat a social superpredator is with a physical superpredator.
-
Yves Raphael Burri Demands Platonism
Mar 18, 2020, 12:50 PM Philosophy is just verbal idealism (verbal sophistry) rather than supernatural Idealism (supernatural sophistry). Science is the application of the process of law to testimony about information itself: epistemology. If you can’t do science: descriptions of operations, then you’re telling fictions. Fictions may be all you can understand, because you lack the training to disambiguate actionability from imaginability, and imaginability from existential possibility. Between Yves, ITV, and closing with CurtD.
—“But the attack on Platonism is just an infantile cope of autistic people who can’t understand the theory of forms. “If I can’t touch a perfect circle it does not exist” well what’s more real the imperfect circle you actually end up drawing using technology or the perfect circle you aspire to drawing. If anything, the perfect circle came before whatever you ended up doing. Existed while your creation exists and will exists after your creation suffered entropy death. Plato was right in the mental dimension. Aristotle was right in the physical dimension. But at the end both are changing illusions and all that exists is the unchanging infinite out of which both infinities evolved and will involve back to. … It’s even dumber to deny the mental realm than to deny the physicality realm. Materialists are no better than solipsist.— Yves Raphael Burri —“I’m glad you’re enjoying the talks. Platonism isn’t my field of expertise, but I find it hard to believe your “autistic coping” theory. I think the more likely explanation is that you’re just wrong.”—In Truth Victorious —“Well the debate on Mind vs. Matter has been going on since the dawn of philosophy. Now PrOpErTaRiAn’s supposedly have settled it in favor of Materialism? This angers me every time I hear it. People with autism have problems with abstract and conceptual thinking. Some people in this intellectual movement pride themselves to being autistic. Naturally its not a coincidence that they cannot understand the concept of a circle existing even though they cannot find one that they can measure. I am not wrong im just ahead of most people on these subjects and decided to force people out of their ignorance. … You want to save western civilisation and are still stuck in finding laws to guide and limit the actions of the Vaishyas, protect Shudras and overthrow the current order by reawakening the Kshatriyas which the “new world order where there is no law of the jungle” has suppressed into inaction. However the most important thing, the one thing that actually needs to be done first is to reestablish the perennial philosophy and a brahmin class that spreads it. Without this all our attempts are futile. Everybody will eventually come to understand that, I just have already done so.”— —“I dont think I have a problem with abstract and conceptual thinking, or the concept of an ideal circle that exists but can’t be measured. I think the question is, if those concepts aren’t externally corespondent, what predictive value do they have in the material world? … If you promise me that a circle exists that can’t be measured, what is the value of your promise? Your promise means nothing because it can’t be validated or invalidated, and has no corresponding external relevance, no?””—In Truth Victorious —“If I promise you that there exists an ideal, perfect circle, that you can reason with your minds eye although yet you cannot create with your body then over time you will get closer and closer to perfection. I show you the path and you constantly approximate yourself to perfection. >>> Upward evolution”—Yves Raphael Burri
(He means if I promise you that having experienced a circle you can imagine a circle that’s true. It is not possible as far as I know to imagine an ‘ideal’ circle out of thin air without having experienced one.)
—“Yes, that sounds like Plato. Why do you think.an autistic person can’t cope with that? Is it possible there is another explanation?”—In Truth Victorious
Where does it exist? I know the function of the human brain as well as the top .1% of people in the field. So I know how the brain constructs the prediction of a circle, that you call an ‘idea’ or ‘ideal’ circle from memories of circles. I also know how why you think there exists an ideal, and how that sense is stored along with those memories. I also know what causes you to believe that an ideal exists and why the word ideal is attractive to you, and what causes you to confuse the existence of such a thing with the imagination of a thing. These are all purely bio-mechanical processes, occuring in well understood cells, faster and with less persistence than you can introspectively observe, just as you cannot introspectively observe how you make your arms move – and for exactly the same reasons.
Existence = Persistence = Independent of human perception = independent of human existence.
A circle consists of a mark = a repeating mark = a repeating mark as a category = a category we have given a name to. But that category consists of nothing more than a sample of observations that are not stored in your brain as images like photographs but an association of fragments stored as patterns of predictions of edges in sequence. We can test this by asking you to draw what you think you imagine. Learning to draw teaches you the scale of illusion of memory just as writing down your prediction of the next few days varies from what you actually do. Thoughts and ideas are constructed and reconstructed in real time by every rehearsal (repetition). The capacity of humans to identify shapes exists The capacity of humans to draw circles exists. The memory of circles exists. The contract for shared experience with others exists. The name of that shared experience we call circles with others exists. That’s all. We are often confused by basic geometric shapes and basic numbers because of their scale independence. We do not make the same mistake with other referencts because they fail at scale independence. The same is true for actionability or many other human traits. But these are just cognitive biases that we fail to test. BTW: When you use the term ‘autistic’ to refer to ‘analytic’ you don’t understand what it means. It means we have greater ability to distinguish between sensation, intuition, emotion, imagination, and observation just like we have greater ability to DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EVERYTHING ELSE. That’s what a male brain does: compartmentalize. This is why men make better political decisions, make better group observations and women make better individual decision and individual observations. Analytic = break into component parts – which is where tool making comes from. We also know that the female brain cannot compartmentalize or deconflate – especially the difference between desirability and truth. I understand that humans vary in the distribution of male and female cognitive traits, but less so in male and female intuitionistic traits. Here is the reality: you want to desperately rely on intuition and imagination and not measurement and reason. the question is why do you so desperately wish to? The answer is in the structure of your brain, and the training of your brain. The biological revolution of Watson and Crick, the technological revolution of Babbage and Turing, Darwinian revolution and the19th century scientific revolution, the american constitution, smith, locke, hume’s british enlightenment, the english constitution, the magna carta, the traditional laws of the european peoples, the works of aristotle, democritus, and archimedes – were tediously analytic documents. There is no evidence that POLITICAL ORDER requires anything other than science, economics, and law. There is evidence that the female and adolescent mind needs literature, and the child mind needs mythos and fables. The fact that these demands reflect the lateral and longitudinal organization of the brain is rather obvious. The fact that we can train children into adolescents, adolescents into adults at increasing costs is what it is: a matter of cost in relation to stage of development, and limit of possible development (intelligence, conscientiousness).
-
Yves Raphael Burri Demands Platonism
Mar 18, 2020, 12:50 PM Philosophy is just verbal idealism (verbal sophistry) rather than supernatural Idealism (supernatural sophistry). Science is the application of the process of law to testimony about information itself: epistemology. If you can’t do science: descriptions of operations, then you’re telling fictions. Fictions may be all you can understand, because you lack the training to disambiguate actionability from imaginability, and imaginability from existential possibility. Between Yves, ITV, and closing with CurtD.
—“But the attack on Platonism is just an infantile cope of autistic people who can’t understand the theory of forms. “If I can’t touch a perfect circle it does not exist” well what’s more real the imperfect circle you actually end up drawing using technology or the perfect circle you aspire to drawing. If anything, the perfect circle came before whatever you ended up doing. Existed while your creation exists and will exists after your creation suffered entropy death. Plato was right in the mental dimension. Aristotle was right in the physical dimension. But at the end both are changing illusions and all that exists is the unchanging infinite out of which both infinities evolved and will involve back to. … It’s even dumber to deny the mental realm than to deny the physicality realm. Materialists are no better than solipsist.— Yves Raphael Burri —“I’m glad you’re enjoying the talks. Platonism isn’t my field of expertise, but I find it hard to believe your “autistic coping” theory. I think the more likely explanation is that you’re just wrong.”—In Truth Victorious —“Well the debate on Mind vs. Matter has been going on since the dawn of philosophy. Now PrOpErTaRiAn’s supposedly have settled it in favor of Materialism? This angers me every time I hear it. People with autism have problems with abstract and conceptual thinking. Some people in this intellectual movement pride themselves to being autistic. Naturally its not a coincidence that they cannot understand the concept of a circle existing even though they cannot find one that they can measure. I am not wrong im just ahead of most people on these subjects and decided to force people out of their ignorance. … You want to save western civilisation and are still stuck in finding laws to guide and limit the actions of the Vaishyas, protect Shudras and overthrow the current order by reawakening the Kshatriyas which the “new world order where there is no law of the jungle” has suppressed into inaction. However the most important thing, the one thing that actually needs to be done first is to reestablish the perennial philosophy and a brahmin class that spreads it. Without this all our attempts are futile. Everybody will eventually come to understand that, I just have already done so.”— —“I dont think I have a problem with abstract and conceptual thinking, or the concept of an ideal circle that exists but can’t be measured. I think the question is, if those concepts aren’t externally corespondent, what predictive value do they have in the material world? … If you promise me that a circle exists that can’t be measured, what is the value of your promise? Your promise means nothing because it can’t be validated or invalidated, and has no corresponding external relevance, no?””—In Truth Victorious —“If I promise you that there exists an ideal, perfect circle, that you can reason with your minds eye although yet you cannot create with your body then over time you will get closer and closer to perfection. I show you the path and you constantly approximate yourself to perfection. >>> Upward evolution”—Yves Raphael Burri
(He means if I promise you that having experienced a circle you can imagine a circle that’s true. It is not possible as far as I know to imagine an ‘ideal’ circle out of thin air without having experienced one.)
—“Yes, that sounds like Plato. Why do you think.an autistic person can’t cope with that? Is it possible there is another explanation?”—In Truth Victorious
Where does it exist? I know the function of the human brain as well as the top .1% of people in the field. So I know how the brain constructs the prediction of a circle, that you call an ‘idea’ or ‘ideal’ circle from memories of circles. I also know how why you think there exists an ideal, and how that sense is stored along with those memories. I also know what causes you to believe that an ideal exists and why the word ideal is attractive to you, and what causes you to confuse the existence of such a thing with the imagination of a thing. These are all purely bio-mechanical processes, occuring in well understood cells, faster and with less persistence than you can introspectively observe, just as you cannot introspectively observe how you make your arms move – and for exactly the same reasons.
Existence = Persistence = Independent of human perception = independent of human existence.
A circle consists of a mark = a repeating mark = a repeating mark as a category = a category we have given a name to. But that category consists of nothing more than a sample of observations that are not stored in your brain as images like photographs but an association of fragments stored as patterns of predictions of edges in sequence. We can test this by asking you to draw what you think you imagine. Learning to draw teaches you the scale of illusion of memory just as writing down your prediction of the next few days varies from what you actually do. Thoughts and ideas are constructed and reconstructed in real time by every rehearsal (repetition). The capacity of humans to identify shapes exists The capacity of humans to draw circles exists. The memory of circles exists. The contract for shared experience with others exists. The name of that shared experience we call circles with others exists. That’s all. We are often confused by basic geometric shapes and basic numbers because of their scale independence. We do not make the same mistake with other referencts because they fail at scale independence. The same is true for actionability or many other human traits. But these are just cognitive biases that we fail to test. BTW: When you use the term ‘autistic’ to refer to ‘analytic’ you don’t understand what it means. It means we have greater ability to distinguish between sensation, intuition, emotion, imagination, and observation just like we have greater ability to DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EVERYTHING ELSE. That’s what a male brain does: compartmentalize. This is why men make better political decisions, make better group observations and women make better individual decision and individual observations. Analytic = break into component parts – which is where tool making comes from. We also know that the female brain cannot compartmentalize or deconflate – especially the difference between desirability and truth. I understand that humans vary in the distribution of male and female cognitive traits, but less so in male and female intuitionistic traits. Here is the reality: you want to desperately rely on intuition and imagination and not measurement and reason. the question is why do you so desperately wish to? The answer is in the structure of your brain, and the training of your brain. The biological revolution of Watson and Crick, the technological revolution of Babbage and Turing, Darwinian revolution and the19th century scientific revolution, the american constitution, smith, locke, hume’s british enlightenment, the english constitution, the magna carta, the traditional laws of the european peoples, the works of aristotle, democritus, and archimedes – were tediously analytic documents. There is no evidence that POLITICAL ORDER requires anything other than science, economics, and law. There is evidence that the female and adolescent mind needs literature, and the child mind needs mythos and fables. The fact that these demands reflect the lateral and longitudinal organization of the brain is rather obvious. The fact that we can train children into adolescents, adolescents into adults at increasing costs is what it is: a matter of cost in relation to stage of development, and limit of possible development (intelligence, conscientiousness).