Caley McKibbin

JamesP has a pinned thread admitting offloading admin duties here. I'll PM a link to the data at the forum I post on for anyone that is still on my good side. I won't be posting info publicly on FDR again.

A few months ago I decided I had enough of Erwin for a lifetime and enough of mob rule. While Stef complains daily about the IQ composition of electorates, anyone that can push a lawnmower can purchase the privilege to ignore the rules while spamming votes to hide other users and hold posts in abeyance. One can do much better at other forums. Far more concerning is that I posted stats from Bryan Caplan contradicting something Stef has started repeating often. That never got past abeyance. I asked why through "contact us" and got no reply. Stef also ignored or didn't see my comment about this. If I'm not even allowed to post GSS data on race here, it signals that FDR is against the facts that it poses as being all about and there is no point to trying to schedule a call in that case. That's a big problem because it means I will need to start notifying everyone elsewhere both of that data plus the intent to ignore and hide it, if no good excuse is forthcoming.

Very convincing. I take from something you said elsewhere that English is not your first language. So I will verify that you know what a lie is. It is a statement with a deliberate intent to deceive. Is empty libel really how you want to present yourself? Also, if you want to hide my posts from the whole forum by going back through my posts with a flurry of -1 reps because I disagree with you, you only reveal yourself as an insecure troll that is less interested in philosophy and more interested in surrounding himself with an echo chamber to reinforce his ego. Why not just go to my profile and -1 the rest of my posts and get it over with? Since I arrived to this forum I have found that it is quite the opposite of what I would expect from a so-called philosophy community. I've met with little but insults and almost every time people disagree with me about anything they get angry, nasty, fence and try to hide my posts. You embarrass yourselves and make a mockery of the spirit of FDR. I've scarcely ever seen such an anti-philosophical community. I said nothing even close to those being opposites. It's baffling why anyone would give a such a response. I can only assume that Wuzzums somehow did not understand what I said at all or understand the words he uses. An action is not cognitively aggressive or competitive. The concepts of aggression and competition depend on the meaning of actions in a context outside of the person performing it. E.g., if Peter hammers a nail into a board, that is not an aggressive act. If Peter hammers a nail into Paul's head, that is an aggressive act. Experiments adding and removing factors is just elementary deductive research procedure. The logic of this procedure is very simple. If you change something and something else changes following that and only that, then what follows is dependent on what was changed. Experiments that sometimes involve transgendering are the key to understanding men and women. The person that is best qualified to understand and explain the difference in sexes is someone whose experienced extends the most into both. I don't think the fact that genetic males with CAIS have female heterosexuality requires explanation. Libido and even orientation is controlled by sex hormones. Up to this point I'm the only one that has given any evidence for anything. All Wuzzums has done is shovel out empty insults and try to shut me out of the forum. I don't scrape gutters. My patience for keyboard commandos is very close to zero, so unless nothing but substance on the topic is forthcoming and those replying to me decide to act like a person that has come to FDR with an interest in genuine discussion I won't be visiting this site again. You'll have to decide: a community of trash talkers or a community of philosophers. Not an argument. Trash talk. Trash comment. A reasonable response would be something like, "Caley, that makes no sense to me. Can you prove it?" I acknowledge only people that conduct themselves at the standards they maintain when using their real names and speaking to someone's face. You're not in kindergarten. I'm sure you can handle that.

Getting in your way is what they are supposed to do, like how an army gets in the way of a king or president. Little defense is better than no defense. I can't believe you would want your friends to do this instead of strangers. Women are not able to detect specific motives. So Stef's explanation makes no sense. Complicated and correct is better than simple and wrong. Your case was that it is important for lineal survival. However, standing in front of something that will not be stopped anyway does not help that. It's not off topic when your topic is accusing people of being lazy. So feel free to justify it at your leisure. I suspect you would object if I said "Mishi2 is a grimy bastard, but that is a topic for another time." Again, in that case you should not have made that accusation. I don't find 2 words complicated. Those words are not particularly important. Ludwig von Mises said this in Human Action: I say that everyone is only willing to die to reduce dissatisfaction. Let's just say I currently have a painful and de-energizing health problem in addition to a terrible mental state. If I don't at least get medical treatment soon things will go down hill hard and fast and I'm starting from near the bottom.

The feeling associated with looking at women and libido are the same thing. It's like saying the colder you feel the colder you think you are. There's no way to trace what is arousing you in isolated cases. If you look at a person and feel something, you don't automatically know what particular feature is doing that. So thinking that something is pretty is not quite the same as having a feeling triggered by something that went through the visual cortex. Experiments on T supplement and blockers are plentiful, particularly transgenders. People that get T therapy report having higher libido while people that take blockers report the opposite. Women that get HRT often report their libido "going through the roof" within a few months. Women get both a T spike and a libido spike when ovulating. The BC pill is known to suppress both. You would never get aroused at all from looking at women if you didn't already have an androgen response, proven by males born with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome having female heterosexuality. I can't see any basis for claiming that T does not increase libido. I suggest reading transgender stories. It gives an understanding that we would never have otherwise. That is a contradiction. Aggression and competitiveness are omnipresent. Those words refer to actions in a social context, not to motives. They are a result of the combination of any kind of desire and opportunity. A biological factor can only affect them by affecting desire. To claim that testosterone increases aggression is to claim that it increases desire for something. Why do women hit kids much more than men do? Kids are the only humans weaker than them. Hitting kids is their aggression outlet. So what? It's screen version rating on IMDB is 4/10. It probably got a lot of reads because it looks controversial. Most women on Earth struggle to eradicate the existence of billionaires. One does not struggle to eradicate his or her favourite thing. You could make a movie called "Billionaires Should Be Shot" that does nothing but loop a billionaire being shot for 2 hours and it would get a better rating than that, especially from women. We're hard pressed to get most women to even speak to us if we don't want to burn the rich. But everyone is a hypocrite. So women want billionaires so they can quit their jobs and spend all day buying shoes and watching soap operas. What is a relationship? People are vending machines. Insert appropriate number of coins and press button for desired menu item. Buttons have a relationship with menu items. As productivity increases over time and women have more coins the marginal utility of a coin decreases. It seems to me that what has changed is what we need to offer each other, while in places like India and Africa you still get a lot of bang for your coin. I don't know how you are linking that with what I said about hormones.

Less demand for what? I haven't read it. So I don't know why you are bringing that up.

Women are not drawn to resources. Men only appear to select for beauty more because they have a more constantly high libido. Women are able to obtain resources from men only because of that imbalance. What people obtain is a function of supply and demand, not being programmed to pursue those things. The ability of women to select men for resources is entirely the result of testosterone difference. If estrogen made you more horny than testosterone the rule would be hags driving Maserati's with studly waiters in the passenger seat. The roles would reverse just from that.

That is two different statements. Everyone prefers that everyone else is a meat shield slave. This is not a special case. I too prefer men (or women) that soak bullets for me. But preferring people that die for indefinite purpose is generally contrary to that. However, that is not relevant to sexual choice as anyone can be used as such. In either case it's a moot point because there is no means to detect such willingness until the death has already occurred. I'll try to explain this a bit. If some women give out white feathers to men that don't enlist, not receiving one becomes the reason to enlist for some (or for all if motivation to enlist ultimately traces back to that as you essentially suggest). You can't distinguish merely wanting to get a date from any other motive. Women want men that do x, and men only do x because women want it. Doing x is then functionally identical to being motivated solely by giving women what they want. So your criterion culls to: women prefer men that want to give women what women want. Side note: a man wouldn't even slow down a sabre-tooth tiger. Tigers weigh up to 300kg and that ain't beer gut. As normally used it is a malformed concept with no scientific value, like "greedy" and "racist". But scientific meaning can be given to laziness as energy conservation, the composite of somatic feelings that make one reluctant to act, a fundamental necessity for survival. An anti-lazy animal would quickly die off. It is already an ancient topic. It follows from the meaning of self and the discovery process for intent. The self is what decides to act. So all action is selfish. There is no means to determine that an action is not in self interest. It's instructive to think in terms of logic gate programming. A computer program decides what to do according to how the parameters fed into it are operated on. "Self-interest" in the context of a program can only mean whatever operation it attempts to perform. The brain is just another computer. Everything is a value in logic gate terms. There are types of dissatisfaction and degrees of each type. All action is intended to reduce dissatisfaction. The answer to the question: I might. It depends on how the dissatisfaction value of living compares to the dissatisfaction value of dying (as the mental obstacle to being dead).

What women think about a corpse is of no consequence. That interpretation is total nonsense. Order of The White Feather was started by an old man and old hag far past fertility. It's about dogma, not attraction. Even if young women really did reject men for not enlisting, that's just a mundane case of self-inflicting harm for dogma like enlistment itself; it's extending the self-harm of enlistment to women. The war political class knows that shame is not enough because not everyone is ashamed of doing useful things. So young women are organized into a psychological army to fight against smart men. Anyway, you never really explained how list-of-adjectives individuals are different from anyone else. Everyone is lazy. Everyone is selfish. Fat people tend to die sooner like alcoholics. To answer your question, escaping misery is the only thing I'm willing to die for. Everyone is willing to die for a value: a value of dissatisfaction. When I was training at a military base fitness center I said to someone, "You work like a slave." He said, "I am. I don't have anything else."

The first thing that a skeptic needs to do is set the goalposts. Otherwise anyone trying to convince does not know which way to kick the ball and the skeptic can merely say that any way the ball went is not a goal. Anyone trying to argue with a skeptic with no goalposts will simply exhaust himself attempting to kick the ball in every direction.

The problem with discussion on this topic is always the false assumption the the concept of "job" is intrinsically important to life when it is not. Suppose there are two people, Person A and Person B, where Person A has everything down to clipping his finger nails automated. He has no job for person B. However Person B has no less work that he needs done for himself. Time available for doing jobs is variable, but time available to spend working is constant for a given lifespan. In a world with only one person there are zero job hours, but the amount of time available for that person to spend working is the same as with any number of other people. The problem for dumber people is only that they will tend to acquire the means of automation later or never.

Spread your legs cheaply. Not rocket science.

So you admire people that will burst through your door if you don't obey the state. You should be delighted with the status quo. Fanatics externalize the cost of aggression, making the state, other cults and war in general possible. It's unfortunate for such a notion however that because fanatics are functionally cuckolds giving away their opportunity to procreate to those pathetic, lazy, fat, chips-eating, low-testosterone, selfish western kids that those kids will be the ones left to rule and populate the planet while the fanatics simply erase their traits from existence.

He did target them very precisely. He copied Karl Marx from "On The Jewish Question" in some obvious ways. It was all about crushing free exchange, which the jew allegedly represented. https://carolynyeager.net/why-we-are-antisemites-text-adolf-hitlers-1920-speech-hofbräuhaus

I'm not sure whether you dismiss advocating violence sincerely or out of fear of it being taken as a crime of inciting riot. But the sentiment is understandable. A crocodile doesn't care about arguments. It only cares about chomping. Law in the U.S. is tricky. In Canada anyone can perform an arrest with the same force as police. Anyone that prevents the arrest, including police, is guilty of a crime. So it's easier to deal with these situations. It seems that in other places dependence on the police to carry out procedures allows the police to systematically shirk duty to let specific groups that they secretly support get away with crime.

It's typical for the most insipid troll to be completely anonymous. Given the expressed appreciation of "good data" and analyzing people, I will respond to you calling me "manlet" on IRC where it is off the record. What would your reaction be if you posted a photo of yourself and I said "subhuman garbage"? More specifically, assuming you had no information about me, what would you think of me then?

I want to have a better informed opinion about others and others to have a better informed opinion about me. But I'm not an advocate of IQ tests in particular. In my book it the worst test ever conceived, referring to the type of questions used. I was not told my scores on tests, but I graduated school in 7 years instead of 12 and won an award for a provincial math competition. Peter Thiel has been my favourite person to listen to. But I have no need for heroes. Your second question is unexpected. I've been on the edge of suicide for most of the last half of my life. This cripples my ability to concentrate. Otherwise I would be a millionaire by now. Instead I'm mostly unemployed. A combination of high ability and strong desires can be a ticket to either salvation or the grave, depending on circumstances. The answer depends on what counts as malware. Suppressed emotion can free brain power. Does that make emotion malware?

I'm not exactly certain how that pertains to what I said. I find your grammar slightly difficult to understand, which makes it more difficult to guess what your thesis is. All laws prohibiting buying or selling anything sexual. Money aside, a less recognized aspect of this scheme is age of consent. I've been hit on by tons of under-age girls, all the way down to about 12 I estimate. So that made me wonder. Originally it was allegedly set at 12 to avoid cases of Stockholm Syndrome with children that have not reached puberty, and it applied only to girls. But it has ratcheted up over time obviously in a desperate attempt to shore up the "social conservative" model. I've been told that I have ethereal male beauty and anyone would be lucky to date me, but there is room for improvement. So I imagine a perfected version of myself would be a menace. A man with super athletic ability, super intelligence and super beauty could go from orphan to instant millionaire in a free market via direct utilization, and sperm and cloning commerce. The established order of the world would be eviscerated by random genetic recombination. The undeserving rich also need the state to stamp out competition. It doesn't even mean that. What most people call monogamy is a dichotomy where seeing multiple people in, say, 1 year rotating intervals is called monogamous, while seeing multiple people in 1 hour rotating intervals is called polygamy or polyamory or promiscuous. The distinction is practically worthless. The only definition of monogamy with any analytical worth is 1 partner in a lifetime. Almost nobody in the real world could tolerate that. Trying to distinguish 1 hour from 1 year intervals is rhetoric that evolved from being unable to accept being permanently locked to 1 person while trying to ward off bullying by old church culture. It's the don't ask, don't tell system. A man's money will mysteriously find itself in a woman's pocket for no fathomable reason while the woman will mysteriously find herself in his bed also for no fathomable reason. Nothing to see here, officer. I'm not sure how that pertains specifically to what I said. A few people have been vague when quoting me. We don't know enough about you and those other people to confirm your narratives. So your post could taken as sour grapes. However, one thing I can say for sure is that you can't ultimately pretend to be unattainable. That is easily rooted out. E.g., if I'm a woman and you try to play that with me, I can say "Fine. Next". At that point you have no option left but to show your true colours, while I still have the option of changing my mind.

That is what happened to me, except the guy that had the original idea quit on me. Someone that I met in the Libertarian Party came to me with the idea of writing a screenplay. I came up with an idea for a TV show that takes place in an anarcho-capitalist society rising out of the ashes of a civil war. Everyone else bugged out before we really got started writing it, then he disappeared without a word when the pilot was part done. That left me in a crappy situation because it is legally complicated finishing it alone after someone else put something into it. So although I loved how it was turning out it's simpler now to abandon it and work on the game versions. Crowdfunding is useless for this. Everyone must trust that some random goof will come through with his promises. To garner confidence from investors you need a prototype and a reputation. By the time you have either it is too late. Getting to that point is where the investment needed. Crowdfunding is useful only as an alternative to singular angel investors or banks. Kickstarter in particular is trash because you can't offer financial rewards. Worst of all, after you disclose your idea publicly anyone else can immediately copy it. I've seen solo developers get ripped off by companies.

Feminist women did not originate any of their own theory. Feminists oppose prostitution only because it is deemed exploitation of workers lacking capital, from Marxist theory. All theory was originally invented by men, all law passed by men, and men enforced everything. The benefit for women is the inverse. Men will choose top tier women first, then work their way down, so if he can choose only one it will always be the 10. It's widely recognized that beautiful women are more resistant to the exploitation theory because they get more money from the beauty industry. But most people that point this out ignore the fact that in this political game beautiful or rich men have the opposite interest of beautiful or rich women, and that rich men also oppress beautiful men or men with genes that are valued in some regard by prohibiting sperm sale, because genes ultimately win by "stealing" away the power of the entrenched and undeserving. Most modern political phenomena are second order effects with no rational explanation because people don't think past the ends of their noses and see the big picture. That's what politics is all about: hiding true purpose, such as disguising individual interest as collective interest. Feminism has always been a morass of confusion torn between understanding the actual oppression of women, attributed to "patriarchy", where patriarchy is really a subset of men that also oppress other men, and smuggling capitalist exploitation theory into public consciousness. Most feminists probably don't understand the origins and implications of what are saying. Neil Strauss is a PUA marketing affiliate that used the shill tactic to sell books and boost his PUA affiliates. The main trick I found with PUA is that they build credulity in the audience by saying mostly obvious things that everyone already knows, then smuggle absurdities in with that, namely that a 1/10 can trick a 10/10 into bed (without money). Of course, people will often take snake oil over no hope, but having snake oil salesmen on the show is hardly good intellectual business. As for the photo with that fat guy that won the lottery, that is a fake news photoshop. A married man named Larry Ross won the $181.5m. But suppose it was true. Obviously he is directly buying things for her. But the headline is false. She doesn't love him. It's like saying that someone that speaks to you politely while you have a gun pointed at his head is a nice guy. He's not a nice guy. There is no such thing as a nice guy. It just seems prudent to play nice in that situation. Likewise, women will play a role for a rich guy while secretly desiring to separate him from the money. The woman in the photo is thinking "Please have a heart attack and leave your money to me ASAP." A relationship in which the thing that keeps your partner is external to you is one that requires eternal vigilance. Rich men are at the mercy of plotting wives that at the slightest dissatisfaction will work to stealthily sabotage the relationship, conniving at divorce to hasten a settlement payout.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/10/intelligence_ma.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/01/intelligence_ma_1.html Economists have near highest SAT scores. http://www.statisticbrain.com/iq-estimates-by-intended-college-major/

I don't know where people get the idea that women are primarily attracted to resources. Money can buy things. Women happen to be a thing. That is all there is to it. It's not as if you could say you are a billionaire but you won't give up a penny and still get the time of day if you are not hot. The only reason for such idiocy as buying expensive things to show how much money you had before you spent it on that junk instead of simply buying women is to circumvent anti-prostitution laws. Those laws in turn were erected by poor men to prevent rich men from monopolizing. Monogamy is sexual communism. Precisely because buying cars actually makes you instantly less wealthy it hinders rather than helps in any other situation. By the way, the chick in the before/after photo looks much better before to me. A great face turned into an overexposed piece of photoshopped plastic.

No we wouldn't. People that have a low estimate of their own ability impede accurate identification of that ability. If a man can be put on the moon, a chunk of grey goo can be dissected.

I'm not clear on what narcissism means. From the dictionary: "extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type." There are some dilemmas created by that definition. (1) Selfishness is in a class of alleged attributes that predate neuroscience and have no functional identity allowing for objective measurement. Another is "greed". This permits me to claim without opposition that all action is selfish by definition because the concept of human action flows from the concept of self. (2) What if I become a millionaire and am fawned over for my talents? If a grandiose view of one's own talents is narcissism, then anyone particularly talented and aware of it is for practical consideration automatically narcissist. I.e., "narcissism" is merely an alias for "talented". (3) A case can easily be made that craving admiration is a fundamental trait like hunger because admiration results in receiving benefits. In summary, that definition can be reduced to: acting, being exceptionally talented and having desires. So while acting and having desires includes everyone, to me it seems like sour grapes against exceptionally talented people and also against beautiful people because beauty has the effect of talent. So the question that arises for me: what rational difference could there be in non-narcissist beautiful people and narcissist beautiful people?

I like Trump as a person, but his platform is almost 100% anti-market. Bryan Caplan debunked the myth of educating people being less libertarian ages ago with his study "Intelligent People Think Like Economists". Educated people are more pro-market, especially in the "anti-foreign bias" category. It's easy to see then how his support would come from the uneducated primarily when his message primarily consisted of protectionism.