Psychology

Shelby aka Jocelyn wrote:To eliminate paranoia, did you access an opportunity cost risk calculation on a probabilistic basis between carrying or not?

Shelby aka Jocelyn wrote:> Where would I get the numbers to plug into a formula

That was my point. Why expend into activities where the opportunity cost calculation is random?

Shelby aka Jocelyn wrote:I am not babbling, perhaps you just don't comprehend. It wouldn't be just the Nth time. You commanded me to be brief.

I am saying it makes no sense to expend effort in areas where you don't have good data on the opportunity cost, if there are other areas where you do have good data and the opportunity cost is compelling.

I wouldn't waste my time creating my own swords, building computers from breadboards, training myself in armed combat, etc.., although I did do all of those activities before I became a teenager and learned some economics theory. Haven't you ever heard of the economic concept maximum division-of-labor?

If I thought I had a real security threat, I would hire a security expert or move. Your armed combat skills are as useless as video game against some expert determined threat. You are overgrown kid, who wants to play dungeons and dragons his whole life.

* language ability: This could include the ability to complete sentences or recognize words when letters have been rearranged or removed.

* spatial ability: the ability to visualize manipulation of shapes
* mathematical ability: the ability to solve problems and use logic

The feminist accuser is privileged because "she" seeks social castration of the accused who has violated her right to equal everything. The accused lives without obligating others to confirm his right to his penis and testosterone. Fundamentally, "rights" are the antithesis of freedom. If equal distribution were possible, then perfection would be possible and nothing would exist, i.e. if the economic cost of arriving at 100% coverage of any natural phenomena were not asymptotically infinite. Put another way, knowledge requires (or is) degrees-of-freedom, thus the feminist is ignorance directed because "she" attempts to lower the degrees-of-freedom of the male, such that his actions must dovetail with her perceived rights. The distinction between rights and (social) harmony or resonance, is that the amount of power required to obtain work is proportional to friction, thus truly harming others is inefficient and ignorance directed. Tolerance unbinds and leads to greater diversity and more degrees-of-freedom.

Some of both sexes may perceive themselves vulnerable to economic rape by fascism that can evolve from statism. An armed citizenry is more effective than police who arrive even 1 second after ejaculation. Thus the female has a free market option that doesn't enslave herself in social force, which also does not bind the freedom of people who want to flirt and copulate. But for the feminist, preventing the rape is not enough and she is willing to sacrifice her own future freedom in exchange for preventing acts that lead to nature's intercourse, such as flirting with a sexy woman or being sexy.

As for social engineering, arguments for inheritability of IQ could lead to government regulation of reproduction.

If IQ is inheritable (regardless of financial support) and a determinant of abilities that impact evolutionary outcomes, then the ability to impregnate as many (smart) women as possible would be an evolutionary advantage. I think there has been some discussion in past that other factors are more important than IQ above a certain threshold, e.g. 115 - 130 or so, thus it may not be necessary to impregnate a very smart woman.

My experience thus far (age 46), is my IQ has tested some where in the range of 130 - 140, I thrice impregnated someone whose IQ is probably in the 100 - 105 range. The kids' IQ seems to be very close to mine, perhaps 10 points lower. So in terms of evolution, perhaps the IQ of the mate is not as important as the ability to impregnate as many women as possible.

Right now, I could impregnate a different woman every week, if that was what I thought was best for all parties involved.

I am doubting any single statistic is an evolutionary determinant. If there was one dominant metric of evolutionary outcome, then knowledge wouldn't exist because everything would be static. Remember in the blog about software engineering, we concluded that software is the encoding of knowledge and that is why software is not like other engineering, because the software product is never static and finished.

Shannon-Nyquist sampling theorem tells us that without infinite samples, we will have aliasing error w.r.t. some perspective, in a world of several billion different situations, e.g. esr can't fix the plumbing on my neighbor's house (nor impregnate her) with his 160 IQ, because it isn't efficient (free market) for him to be every where and do everything. We must try to remember that each of our perspectives is flawed as a general model for society-- nature requires diversity and dynamism for the free market and knowledge to function.

Applying those concepts, I can conclude that collectivism of any form (especially insurance) is guaranteed gridlock. Problem with insurance is that the group should only pay for the damages collectively as they occur, not as some model over time that guarantees failure, e.g. any savings pool can't be invested with guarantees without bonds, and yet bonds destroy the free market. I have gone into this in great detail else where.

Suffice it to say, that all forms of futures contracts inhibit the fitness of the free market. Ditto IQ as a contract of future performance.

This is nothing new. I knew this method when I was Grade 3. Drawing lines is mimic the process of digits multiplying. This case is 21x13, in the form of Binomial theorem it is (20+1)x(10+3) which can be expanded as 20*10 + (20*3 + 10*1) + 1*3, in another form it is 2*100 + (6 + 1)*10 + 3 = 273. This is same process how the video shows adding each digit unit together. Drawing lines could be funny for kids who are trying to learn multiplying, however, it is useless while applying to big numbers.

1. If I start at a dot and intersect 2 new dots per line, I get 9 dots. But the problem is there is no pattern where lines can start and end at dots, where the last line does not end at an already intersected dot. Thus the last line only intersects 1 new dot. Thus I conclude the only possible solution must include lines that don't always end on a dot. I studied the rules again and conclude that is not prevented by the rules.
   
2. Any first line that intersects 3 dots and does not end on a dot, will only allow a 2nd line that intersects 2 dots, or vice versa, this is because all the lines that can intersect more than one dot either run parallel or perpendicular to each other.
   
3. Thus the only possible solution would have to use a starting line that intersects three or two dots and does not end on a dot, and at least one line intersects 3 new dots and the others 2 new dots. You can reverse the order of the lines to get the pattern that starts with line that intersects only 2 dots.
   
   

Code:

O---|---|---|
O---V---V---V
O---|---|---|

@esr

> at least so far as I’ve yet seen, have a generative explanation for why women friend-zone nice guys and fuck bad boys

> the only plausible explanation I can come up with is that in the EEA, when early humans
> lived in small hunting bands, the behaviors modern assholes now use to fake alpha must
> have been reliable indicators of superior status

Another possible explanation which I find more plausible is negs may place females in the emotional state of being dominated by an alpha. A bitchy female is projecting that she views herself as worthy of only an alpha male, the bitchiness is to chase away the lesser males, so as to not clutter her limited time window for reproduction.

Temporal social status or raw IQ alone may not be a reliable enough indicator of the dominant or successful genetics over the long-term. Evolution may have evolved the alpha females to be seek other cues of competitiveness. And/or given the emotional lean of females which I suppose is necessary for child rearing, combined with the inexact means which a female can readily measure genetic fitness, the feeling of being dominated and mating with a potential alpha may be one possible strategy. We are not observing that all females pursue this "negs" metric strategy, though nearly all will chose to be dominated (in their "instinctive hindbrain") by the metric or strategy they have chosen to determine alpha genetics:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4757&cpage=1#comment-393982

@JB

> The neg must be seen as fundamentally an equalizer of relative status in field, and, arguably,
> what a woman has done to deserve it is to think she’s “too good for you”. It is intended to
> puncture bloated egos, especially of highly attractive women with “bitch shields” who will
> literally not give you the time of day unless you deploy it.

@Ken Burnside

> I have used ‘negs’ – Eric does misunderstand them; they’re meant to be a signal for “I see
> through your bullshit, but understand why you have to do it.”

Both comments are congruent with my theory above.

@DJMoore

> To tie it all up: Statism, whether you call it liberalism, progressivism, socialism, whatever, is
> essentially about turning everyone into betas or herbs. Individualism, in all its forms, is about
> turning everyone into alphas or sigmas.

The alphas need the social control system. The sigmas can compete with alphas yet don't crave control because they win without social control:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/05/explaining-sigma-again.html
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/roissy-and-limits-of-game.html

@M. Simon

> comfortable with the ins and outs of the nasty alpha – she knows I have a roving eye
>
> My favorite “line”? “Sleep with me naked. No sex.” You could see the wheels turning. She
> thinks, “If I get naked there WILL be sex.” And then I would sleep with her naked. No sex. In
> about 3/4s of the cases she would come back gagging for it... Her thinking? “Is there
> something wrong with me? Is he gay? I have to find out.” And in the other 1/4 of the cases?
> I got to sleep with a naked woman.

Clever but probably a beta prop. Alphas and sigmas have more important things to do in developing and maintaining their USPs and more open crotches to choose from than free time.

@lalalady

> It seems like guys are either too beta or too alpha, and so as a girl you need to choose between
> having a boyfriend you’re not attracted to or a fuck-buddy whom you are. If you’re like me, and
> choose neither, it can get kind of lonely.

The only way to pass on your genetics is to mate. Many females apparently choose a strategy that balances mating as high up genetically as they can, while not destroying the rearing potential of the offspring. One strategy is using betas for rearing assistance while mating with alphas. Others such as Marie advocate the more conservative strategy of mating and rearing with a beta (or perhaps a perceived "alpha" per my theory above). There are numerous possible strategies. Shenpen pointed out that older females are nearer to the end of their reproductive window and are more likely to prioritize a perceived beta for the rearing stage.

@TomA

> A group with a charismatic leader might do better yet, as synergy and innovation
> might allow them to bring down a mammoth and eat for a month.
>
> In this sense, the charismatic leader arises as a mutation in society and either helps
> (leading to enhanced survival/prosperity) or hurts (leading to an evolutionary dead-end).
> Either way, the social propensity to “follow the leader” is an evolutionary trait.
>
> As a side note, humor as a charismatic skill may be a way of implying that you are
> neither a threat nor an enemy. Weirdness goes hand-in-hand with mutation.

Attraction to weirdness (as a signal of uniqueness) could plausibly populate diversity in the gene pool enabling adaption to unknown future challenges to survival.

Evolution rewarding individuality (regardless of a priori judgments of value) is a cool theory for anarchist, in light of the discussion (in the prior blog #4757) debating whether equality and social justice may lead to dystopian political correctness a.k.a. Doublethink.

Regarding your "either way"...

@JustSaying

> Lazarus posited that emotions result from first a conscious or hindbrain appraisal.
> Emotions apparently motivate humans to choose successful evolutionary strategies.

A mathematical theory of why we have fuzzy emotions.

Evolution may maximize diversity of trial balloons, thus exists our fuzzy emotional system to motivate us to make it so.

Given fuzzy metrics, this is a probabilistic outcome similar to esr's maximize breadth of options (see blog #4699) strategic insight. For example, I posited that 'negs' in PUA theory, may be triggering the emotional desire of a female to be dominated, as a signal of a potential alpha (respecting Occam's razor and orthogonal to any more difficult to falsify theory of why harsh dominance is an evolutionary signal of alpha-ness). There is a theory of how this relates to degrees-of-freedom in terms of solving for the dynamic local and global optimum pathway(s) to the dynamic, unknown future.

... $7 and $7841 remain true and verifiable in the books ...

And surprisingly it even absolves the banks somewhat...

(gold standard)...That is free market in action without bankster manipulation...

...Why you would go and defend these !#*%@# banksters and their money printing is beyond me.

...Can you believe the scam the came up with years ago? "We will own this planet for little bit of paper" - and they will (having banks, US army to enforce their actions, media to brainwash sheeple) if we keep watching dancing with idiots shows.

if the sleeping majority just would wake up...

...political affiliation, which appears to be most importantly a selfish gene socioeconomic opportunity cost phenomenon, than the manipulative control that it also may be. As I see it, political affiliation is the complex positioning of alpha males (greed and control) combined with the complex manipulation of omega males. All perceive they are positioning themselves advantageously for gains in what they perceive to be important to their happiness and evolutionary relevance...

Correction. That should be manipulative control of betas, gammas, and omegas. The sigmas can compete with alphas yet don’t crave control because they excel without it, outside of the mainstream social paradigm, or by empowering the individual:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/05/explaining-sigma-again.html
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/01/roissy-and-limits-of-game.html

Politics legislates that which can not be controlled top-down, magically promising the people what they think should be but either can not or not sustainably. (For example, ) Equality and social justice means plunder and the redistribution of wealth...

...If I am correctly interpreting esr’s summary of Olson, it implies the special interests groups are a minority, however they comprise the entire population playing the political game.

Why do you protest against politics, given it is a natural form of human competition? Anarchism would unrealistically require that everyone is a pure sigma (the sigma in PUA theory a.k.a pickup artist theory)– not libertarians who think they can legislate liberty.

Sigmas are successful when they reject political capital (and money as much as practical) and make innovations or insights in the free market. When they drift to relying on the monetary or political capital they’ve earned from those innovations or insights, they are falling away from their optimum efficacy...

...Non-sigmas don’t think they can get all their desired results without some politics. The alphas serve their demand to be deluded on the efficacy of political action.

...The unfitness of debt and political action is apparently evolutionary necessary or optimum, else it wouldn’t be natural and someone would devise a private sector solution...

...Also there is the political power vacuum of a non-fractional reserve which can’t stand, because the people will always choose those who promise more than they can pay for, i.e. people will always choose excessive debt when it can be hidden in the collective...

...Infinite degrees-of-freedom (perfect fitness) could not be observable in any reality. There are no absolutes. Contrast requires imperfection. Existence requires perception. Perception requires contrast. Full circle to my early comment...

Given fuzzy metrics, this is a probabilistic outcome similar to esr’s maximize breadth of options (see blog #4699) strategic insight. For example, I posited that ‘negs’ in PUA theory, may be triggering the emotional desire of a female to be dominated, as a signal of a potential alpha (respecting Occam’s razor and orthogonal to any more difficult to falsify theory of why harsh dominance is an evolutionary signal of alpha-ness). There is a theory of how this relates to degrees-of-freedom in terms of solving for the dynamic local and global optimum pathway(s) to the dynamic, unknown future.

The fact that we have these parasite banksters around our necks and their talons on the money supply is the restricting factor, not that stupid old canard of gold coming out of the ground per year, (you also falling for this??) which is only 1 or 2% of total gold stocks above ground. All these stocks represents supply - at the right price. So if necessary, let the gold price rise slightly and some gold will come out. Money supply problem solved. That is free market in action without bankster manipulation.

...Essentially by implication you claimed that infinity (infinite degrees-of-freedom to attain good at all possible perspectives) must be observable, else it is impossible...

...Whether it exists or not, infinity or the finite bound is decomposed co-inductively as observations directed towards its final unreachable or finite bound that we can not prove is final.

How sad a finite universe would be, where the scientific method could be shelved and knowledge would cease to expand at some finite bound. The scientific method requires that we never trust a bound (e.g. Planck’s constant precision) as final and continue searching and testing forever.

It is a crowd that basically consists of discontent males using language patterns and subliminal cues to get laid

The PUA crowd principally aim to press certain buttons in the female psyche to turn them into mindless sex robots...

...Notice: both sides want to dominate and manipulate - there is no faith in and use of cooperation - it is sex warfare for animals.

The absolute majority of those PUA sigmoids are nowhere close to being a sigma. Why? Because they are being jerked around by their fear of pain and their dicks

A true sigma would be like a Zen buddhist in mind frame. No buttons in themselves to push, no need for pushing buttons in others. Compassion and love and truth.

This was one of the most to-the-point statements regarding economy I've seen for a long while. Our basic problem in society is that we are un-ecological. We consume more than our natural resources can provide

the credit affliction is a disease that started in the US

Either you just created a chasm between you and peri1224 or you pushed him into enlightenment

It can be read "generously" as coming from a position of truth (where the recipient either gets it or is willing to work with it)

You don't seem to appreciate that the political demand for pulling the future into the present is unlimited and insatiable (which only a paper lie can supply), because the beta, gamma, and omega males are
never satisfied for as long as they are not alpha or sigma males on the totem-pole of evolutionary mating and social status.

An alpha male is also never satisfied, it is just that he has hit a local maxima in his hierarchy.

Equality and democracy are the lie fed by the alpha-males to the lower males.

This can be read in at least two ways, and both can be true at the same time.
1. Equality and democracy does not exist in reality and hidden forces pull all the strings.
2. Equality and democracy IS NOT TRUE/DOES NOT WORK.
I can prove point 2.

Debt is mathematically incompatible with a non-fractional reserve (e.g. gold) monetary system.

How/why? I lend you a gold coin, you pay me back later? Or is it the interest that you are thinking about (interest creating "money" out of nothing)? We could pay interest in apples though.

The masses have always since recorded time demanded more from the system, than is sustainable.

Hunter/gather societies are/were self-regulating - when there is nothing left, move on (the problem with current society and technology is that we have nowhere to go - we cannot yet hop into a nice rocket and land on a luscious green planet next doors).

Or maybe you were pointing to "demanded" not as in "overtaxing" but rather as "needing/wanting" - then I agree.

What you fail to understand is that a physically impossible nirvana of infinite degrees-of-freedom where everyone was equal would be a system that mathematically can not exist. Because nothing could change, no knowledge could be generated, and nothing could be perceived because there would be no contrast.

If you remove "physically" then you are describing G-d and why we cannot understand G-d, regardless of tradition

That is the most convoluted way of stating simply that racism is profiling based on race (due to a race possessing a higher mean propensity) instead of the actual measured value of an individual's propensity.

Racism is not stupid and rather quite rational when the individual measures of propensity are not available, such as when I venture into the hood. And if you are truly concerned about individual freedom, then you must recognize that even if the probability of an individual measure points to a higher propensity, it doesn't insure it is independent of another measure of dis-propensity which an individual might posses. The myopia of statistics is what was not sampled.