Theme: Truth

  • The Lies

    [T]he Lies: “I reject, I disapprove, I disagree, I’m wary, I don’t believe, or engaging in ridicule, shaming, moralizing or psychologizing.” None of these are a form of reciprocity: an argument – they’re counter-signaling in lieu of argument. And lacking argument because of one’s ignorance or incompetence. And cowardice in admission of one’s ignorance or incompetence. An intellectually honest man does not counter signal like a woman, but either seeks to understand by asking questions, or posits a counter proposition that is open to equal criticism. counter signaling is a violation of reciprocity – a pretense of knowledge when one has none. You have only THREE intellectually honest propositions: … 1. Refutation. … 2. Competition. … 3. Question. Or the female (dishonest) … 4. Disapproval by counter signaling One cannot disapprove of a truth only a preference. The female cannot use force, or necessarily physically cooperate, or even use organized force or competition, but she can deprive men of sex, affection, care, and advocacy, and engage in counter signaling, or undermining, and rally other women to counter signal, and undermine. That is their weapon of competition of necessity. It is the means by which the females CREATE MARKET DEMAND for men to SATISFY THEM in exchange for sex, affection, care, advocacy and perhaps most importantly, abstinence from undermining you and those you cooperate with. This is why, if not one family one vote, then men and women require different houses, and both the legal prohibition on male violence, as well as the legal prohibition on female avoidance of argument, undermining, and reputation destruction so that both genders are reduced as are all others in the marketplace to cooperation by voluntary exchanges. Which was the point of marriage and one family one vote – and one of the principle means by which women’s natural irreciprocity and social superpredation was let loose from the pandora’s box of enfranchisement without equal legal suppression of the female means of superpredation that we had evolved in legal suppression of the man’s means of superpredation. We are not consious of the causes of our behavior. Which is what I seek to cure. And which will restore us to reciprocity. And end the conflict. And force us back into markets. -Cheers

  • The Lies

    [T]he Lies: “I reject, I disapprove, I disagree, I’m wary, I don’t believe, or engaging in ridicule, shaming, moralizing or psychologizing.” None of these are a form of reciprocity: an argument – they’re counter-signaling in lieu of argument. And lacking argument because of one’s ignorance or incompetence. And cowardice in admission of one’s ignorance or incompetence. An intellectually honest man does not counter signal like a woman, but either seeks to understand by asking questions, or posits a counter proposition that is open to equal criticism. counter signaling is a violation of reciprocity – a pretense of knowledge when one has none. You have only THREE intellectually honest propositions: … 1. Refutation. … 2. Competition. … 3. Question. Or the female (dishonest) … 4. Disapproval by counter signaling One cannot disapprove of a truth only a preference. The female cannot use force, or necessarily physically cooperate, or even use organized force or competition, but she can deprive men of sex, affection, care, and advocacy, and engage in counter signaling, or undermining, and rally other women to counter signal, and undermine. That is their weapon of competition of necessity. It is the means by which the females CREATE MARKET DEMAND for men to SATISFY THEM in exchange for sex, affection, care, advocacy and perhaps most importantly, abstinence from undermining you and those you cooperate with. This is why, if not one family one vote, then men and women require different houses, and both the legal prohibition on male violence, as well as the legal prohibition on female avoidance of argument, undermining, and reputation destruction so that both genders are reduced as are all others in the marketplace to cooperation by voluntary exchanges. Which was the point of marriage and one family one vote – and one of the principle means by which women’s natural irreciprocity and social superpredation was let loose from the pandora’s box of enfranchisement without equal legal suppression of the female means of superpredation that we had evolved in legal suppression of the man’s means of superpredation. We are not consious of the causes of our behavior. Which is what I seek to cure. And which will restore us to reciprocity. And end the conflict. And force us back into markets. -Cheers

  • Market Truth is Terrifying

    Market Truth is Terrifying https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/24/market-truth-is-terrifying/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 18:12:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253748726897803271

  • Market Truth is Terrifying

    Demonic gods are not terrifying except to children. What’s terrifying is market competition and acceptance of our inequality and your status in the market. The solution? Develop alternative markets, not for accomplishment but for adherence.

  • Market Truth is Terrifying

    Demonic gods are not terrifying except to children. What’s terrifying is market competition and acceptance of our inequality and your status in the market. The solution? Develop alternative markets, not for accomplishment but for adherence.

  • Psychologizing (fraud), Psychology (pseudoscience), and Law (truth)

    Psychologizing (fraud), Psychology (pseudoscience), and Law (truth) https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/psychologizing-fraud-psychology-pseudoscience-and-law-truth/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 21:22:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253434117842022400

  • Psychologizing (fraud), Psychology (pseudoscience), and Law (truth)

    Apr 11, 2020, 3:28 PM

    —“Regarding criticizing psychologizing. Psychologizing is perhaps too broad a term. If you mean Freud, maybe. Jung, Piaget, Frohm? They don’t all offer the same analysis. The latter of master craftsmen of the psyche and should be studied and utilized.”—Marc Malone

    In P-law we talk of acquisitions gains, holds, losses, thefts frauds and conspiracies – these are facts. Psychology talks of experience and values. Why? P-Law (science) is far better than psychology (pseudoscience) although I would go along with Jung and piaget as long as we burn Freud at the stake for his crime against humanity. P is to metaphysics, psychology, and sociology as science is to physics, chemistry, and biology. Literature is just analogy not description of causality. Psychologizing is a form of feminine ridicule to force conformity with female cognition. Freud was trying to counter Menger, Nietzsche, Spencer, and Darwin so that he could preserve jewish female social-construction to undermine western civilization by preserving emotional coercion – their group evolutionary strategy. He built a pseudoscience as did Boas in anthropology, and marx in sociology and economics, adoro-fromm in culture and values, derrida in postmodernism, betty friedan in feminism, rand and rothbard in pseudolaw, the neocons in international law, and cantor and bohr in pseudo mathematics. Instead of using literary pseudoscience, try instead, by explaining rational incentives to acquire, hold, and judiciously spend assets instead. Economics isn’t only the language of social science – it’s the language of social science, psychology, and metaphysics. It has to be. Everything else is self reporting and the reason for the replication crisis in the pseudo-sciencies is decoration in self reporting. People can’t truthfully self report. They can only demonstrate preference. And economics is the study of demonstrated preferences in different contexts despite self reporting of memories and predictions. Emotions are a reaction to changes in state of assets. (really), So either you can explain all people’s actions as the series of incentives that led them to a thought word or deed, and their emotions as natural reaction to positives and negatives or you can’t. The valueof the series of literary thinkers from Jung to Vonnegut as we see in Jordan Peterson’s combination of cognitive science, jungian literary archetypes, and ancient myths and parables, is that the mind is resistant to reasoning, but open to suggestion, and so parables and allegories put the individual in a position of observer, by passing his mistrust, the same way that psychedelics put the mind in position of observer, and in this way we adapt by voluntary choice independent of shame or coercion. We own and therefore do not question our new memory (belief), or feel indebted to others, or fealty tothem, or status penalty, when we use it. When we own an idea we use it without external consideration. There are are at least six methods of cognitive behavioral therapy, all of which perform the same function of creating a rewarding alternate subnetwork network around troubled, traumatized, or depressed (exhausted) subnetworks, and in doing so altering network weights that determine what captures our attention and emotion, and as such alters our cognitive and emotional and autoassociative responses

    1. Prevention by teaching stoicism best, buddhism eh, and religion least.
    2. Second is explanation – this works for the most rational of us. Understanding is enough.
    3. Third is observation – getting the patient to look at him or herself or someone else in the same position as a third person.
    4. Fourth is suggestion by analogy or parable using suggestibility under suspension of disbelief.
    5. First by stoicism or what we call cbt – exposure works through training.
    6. Fifth is chemical freedom from self auditing so that there is no negative emotional relation between experience and understanding.

    Only once you understand this spectrum, AND propertarianism’s restatement of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology AND the rather simple structure of the human brain underneath it, do you know which of those techniques is necessary to use for which problem, and WHY. The world is not complicated when laundered of the errors and fitionalisms that we substitute for knowledge:

    1. Intuitionistic: Analogy->Mythology
    2. Verbal: Sophistry->idealism,
    3. Material: Magic->Pseudoscience,
    4. Emotional: Occult->Supernatural

    It’s our ignorance, errors, biases, wishful thinking and deceits of self and others that make it seem complicated. —Cheers

  • Psychologizing (fraud), Psychology (pseudoscience), and Law (truth)

    Apr 11, 2020, 3:28 PM

    —“Regarding criticizing psychologizing. Psychologizing is perhaps too broad a term. If you mean Freud, maybe. Jung, Piaget, Frohm? They don’t all offer the same analysis. The latter of master craftsmen of the psyche and should be studied and utilized.”—Marc Malone

    In P-law we talk of acquisitions gains, holds, losses, thefts frauds and conspiracies – these are facts. Psychology talks of experience and values. Why? P-Law (science) is far better than psychology (pseudoscience) although I would go along with Jung and piaget as long as we burn Freud at the stake for his crime against humanity. P is to metaphysics, psychology, and sociology as science is to physics, chemistry, and biology. Literature is just analogy not description of causality. Psychologizing is a form of feminine ridicule to force conformity with female cognition. Freud was trying to counter Menger, Nietzsche, Spencer, and Darwin so that he could preserve jewish female social-construction to undermine western civilization by preserving emotional coercion – their group evolutionary strategy. He built a pseudoscience as did Boas in anthropology, and marx in sociology and economics, adoro-fromm in culture and values, derrida in postmodernism, betty friedan in feminism, rand and rothbard in pseudolaw, the neocons in international law, and cantor and bohr in pseudo mathematics. Instead of using literary pseudoscience, try instead, by explaining rational incentives to acquire, hold, and judiciously spend assets instead. Economics isn’t only the language of social science – it’s the language of social science, psychology, and metaphysics. It has to be. Everything else is self reporting and the reason for the replication crisis in the pseudo-sciencies is decoration in self reporting. People can’t truthfully self report. They can only demonstrate preference. And economics is the study of demonstrated preferences in different contexts despite self reporting of memories and predictions. Emotions are a reaction to changes in state of assets. (really), So either you can explain all people’s actions as the series of incentives that led them to a thought word or deed, and their emotions as natural reaction to positives and negatives or you can’t. The valueof the series of literary thinkers from Jung to Vonnegut as we see in Jordan Peterson’s combination of cognitive science, jungian literary archetypes, and ancient myths and parables, is that the mind is resistant to reasoning, but open to suggestion, and so parables and allegories put the individual in a position of observer, by passing his mistrust, the same way that psychedelics put the mind in position of observer, and in this way we adapt by voluntary choice independent of shame or coercion. We own and therefore do not question our new memory (belief), or feel indebted to others, or fealty tothem, or status penalty, when we use it. When we own an idea we use it without external consideration. There are are at least six methods of cognitive behavioral therapy, all of which perform the same function of creating a rewarding alternate subnetwork network around troubled, traumatized, or depressed (exhausted) subnetworks, and in doing so altering network weights that determine what captures our attention and emotion, and as such alters our cognitive and emotional and autoassociative responses

    1. Prevention by teaching stoicism best, buddhism eh, and religion least.
    2. Second is explanation – this works for the most rational of us. Understanding is enough.
    3. Third is observation – getting the patient to look at him or herself or someone else in the same position as a third person.
    4. Fourth is suggestion by analogy or parable using suggestibility under suspension of disbelief.
    5. First by stoicism or what we call cbt – exposure works through training.
    6. Fifth is chemical freedom from self auditing so that there is no negative emotional relation between experience and understanding.

    Only once you understand this spectrum, AND propertarianism’s restatement of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology AND the rather simple structure of the human brain underneath it, do you know which of those techniques is necessary to use for which problem, and WHY. The world is not complicated when laundered of the errors and fitionalisms that we substitute for knowledge:

    1. Intuitionistic: Analogy->Mythology
    2. Verbal: Sophistry->idealism,
    3. Material: Magic->Pseudoscience,
    4. Emotional: Occult->Supernatural

    It’s our ignorance, errors, biases, wishful thinking and deceits of self and others that make it seem complicated. —Cheers

  • We Invented Truth and They Invented Lying in Response

    We Invented Truth and They Invented Lying in Response https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/we-invented-truth-and-they-invented-lying-in-response/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 20:10:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253415870467997697

  • We Invented Truth and They Invented Lying in Response

    (important) (core)

    ............Female and Semitic vs Male and European
    .....................Dysgenics vs Eugenics
    ...................Consumption vs Capitalization
    ...........Private Consumption vs Commons Production
    ...................Undermining vs Order
    ..........Approval/Disapproval vs True/False
    ................Incrementalism vs zero tolerance
    .........Plausible Deniability vs Warranty
    .........................GSRRM vs Truth Regardless of Cost
    ......................Critique vs Falsification
    ........................Pilpul vs Justification
    .................False Promise vs Promise
    ...........Baiting into Hazard vs Offers of Reciprocity
    ......................One Herd vs Many Packs