Caley McKibbin

There was a woman that had made the first move on me that I decided I was not interested in because she had learning disabilities and was strongly Christian. I took the opportunity to test her. She wanted me to come to her house one day. I was trying to appear cruel to see how much it would take to make her change her mind. I told her that I would only use her as a piece of meat and otherwise ignore her. She said she would settle for that. I had my money against myself, to be honest.

Women are against having kids because they are guilted by the Malthusian trap theorists. That is unrelated to feminism. E.g., Ana Kasparian said that having kids is "selfish".

The press is not "dying". People believe particular fairy tales because they prefer the tales are true, not because random goofs ever had credibility. Dave Rubin is spot on when he describes modern decentralized media as a more specifically tailored intellectual safe space or echo chamber. This was always inevitable because that is basically what people want. It's like how people want to play video games where they are overpowered. Everything has been moving in this direction. But none of this is anything to be concerned about precisely because the media does not change how people generally think. It is not really changing the world. Democrats want to hate Putin because he represents the era of reform after the communist experiment in Russia. That is why the fairy tale is successful.

Is that an argument? That paragraph basically reduces to "Some people say x and x is wrong." Every economy involves one basic function regardless of anything being called "money". The question of barter was asked a while ago in the offshoot Mises Community forum and I answered it: It's trivial how many people or things are in the system. The same elementary function is repeated some number of times. What you linked to does not explain what barter is, so it only confuses the issue. What was said a few posts down from mine is spot on: So it's not really an "empirical" discovery that there was no barter before money. It's true by definition. The ex post facto characterization of a system as barter stems from the retro application of a later identification of some type of good as money to that system. E.g., any system prior to dollars or gold coins is "barter". Which is not saying that a different kind of computation is involved. So what is the "barter theory of money"? Maybe it is the mere observation that some good became dominantly used in exchange sequences to obtain A starting with B. I can't specifically recall any Austrian economist saying otherwise. So referenced needed for that. Reference needed for Austrians that think that. This topic is old hat by now. So the conversation is not fresh in my mind. But I watched the debate between Murphy and Mosler and recall Mosler did say something to effect of "deficits don't matter." As a critique of the form of your article, you need to have a clear purpose. As it is I don't see an argument.

1. No. I mean the answers to some questions have predictive power on the answers to other questions. 2. Women just get spammed to death and quit. Very attractive women will have unmanageable exploding inboxes. It's all of the problems from anonymity amped to the ultimate extreme with a megadose of testosterone. The only effective filter is true identity. I'm opposed to anonymity in general because identification keeps people honest. But in this setting it is ridiculous. It's just ruins everything for upstanding people.

It doesn't help that nearly all men are fat and women don't like curves of any sort. Even if standards were held constant that would still be the apparent outcome. The quality of men has dropped remarkably.

I've hardly used dating sites because they are deeply flawed regardless whether they are free. But I looked around OKCupid a bit at people that had high match scores and found that it located some interesting profiles, although hardly anyone had a very good score with me. I only answered one or two market related questions, yet I still found some libertarians. So that was kinda fascinating because there seems to be a tendency for my views in general to correspond with more libertarian types. The highest at 96% was someone that posted here years ago. (I hesitate to name her forum handle.) That site can be used to locate people with specific responses to whatever topics there are questions for. It's at least good for that narrow purpose.

Try a search for public proxy and view it through that.

I've seen this accusation of "manipulation" many times and don't see the merit. The only way to be prevented from making an argument is physically not being able to speak, as in your voice is drowned out. Even if the other person doesn't like what you said, you still said it. For everyone else, you either have a good case or you don't. OP, I could only ever have one thing to say to someone that does this: You don't control what other people say to me. You only control what you say to me. If your argument fails, too bad, so sad, get a better one or get better at expressing yourself. Otherwise it's just vagina negotiating with penis, so the answer to the question is: some of that vagina power will have to be shifted from getting something else to getting this. It's like a video game where you allocate an energy pool to shield, weapons, etc. Want more weapons? Say buh-bye to some shields. Cult accusations are basically laziness. No argument? Let's try fear. Don't listen to ____. He has invisible tentacles that go in your ears and control your thoughts. When everyone other than the alleged cult has someone's ear for x time and then you within a fraction of that time undermine all of it, I ask how incompetent everyone else is. Maybe it's less an insult than a confession. We are so incompetent that in your whole life before you found ____ we never said anything of impact, even with the titanic advantage of forcing you to listen to us exclusively for at least 12 years partly before your brain was developed enough to be suspicious of our motives.

I learned Java specifically to make the world's first ocean planet steading and space steading games, with aspects like electric circuits, thermodynamics and aerodynamics. When I looked at job ads they all required huge lists of languages and random APIs I've never heard of. In the time it would take to learn all of that junk I would be done my own unique game that I fully own and may eventually make millions from. From my view as someone relatively young and new the existing businesses are too arcane, too entrenched in their own ways. Getting an education and getting a job is supposed to be cheaper and less risky than entrepreneurial work in Austrian theory, but the hurdles to getting a job are so complex now that breaking into the job market has become an entrepreneurial level endeavor, requiring massive investments just to get looked at, while not offering the unlimited rewards.

I heard about that idea from him a while ago, but it's beyond my comprehension how that can be done on a mass scale. I vaguely recall reading about the citric acid cycle in a biochem book when I was 12 or so.

So you want to do nothing and get paid everything. Welcome to the club, 7 billion strong. Now how do you figure you will get a job doing the same as that guest when any increase in demand can be routed to him? A better idea than looking for jobs that are not available to is to look for jobs that are. In Canada there is occupation projection data. It shows software having more projected opening than seekers, but I think it BS. Computer engineers Software engineers and designers The problem with programming is that more users do not require more programmers. So job growth heads toward zero as category saturation is reached.

It is what "not an argument" is. What Will Torbald said is not an argument. Claiming to be smart is not an argument. But the difference in my case is I don't need to explain the problem in not making an argument to anyone that already listens to Stef. Jihadi on its own resources is trivial. It could never enable itself in the evolution of technology. But what I'm talking about is getting things right on the lowest level. The answer to the second question is no. A method of analysis that is not hidden counts. You saying that a person is smart tells me nothing except that you agree with that person about some stuff. The trick with standard tests is that you are kinda caught if you approve a type of test, then don't get the result you want. I would challenge Stef to take a test or tests if he can reasonably afford it, but ideally I extend that to everyone else. Everyone should be tested and all scores should be exhibited. Hiding is some type of confession.

Any standard will do for starters. Your case analysis is not standard. I'm asking because it seems prudent to have answers to the questions that will obviously be asked and you can never be too intimidating. If Stef wants to have no defense except opinion of his fans, which is redundant intelligence as agreement, and shadow slinking crybabies that do nothing but press a minus button on posts because questions hurt their feelings, that's no sweat off my back. Except that I like winning, so if I'm going to be on a team I prefer that it does what wins.

My observation is that the men that don't get the sluts call them sluts. When I imagine a man going around calling women sluts in public, I struggle to imagine the women he is referring to throwing numbers at his face. Ecological fallacy. Only sperm of valueless men is valueless. Sperm of high value men is so high that low value men went to the trouble criminalizing sale. That's an awful lot of effort to change $1 to $0. Reference needed for "crappy ones". Frankly, that is a dumb theory. In any case where demand increases, the marginal quality of the supply will go down. The notion that they specifically target "crappy ones" is ridiculous on the face of it. A suspicion creeps in that sour grapes is where that one comes from. No. People shame the competition. Value is irrelevant. A life story is not needed to know you are ugly. Nobody high quality bothers anyone at all, because they only need to be themselves to get what they want, their greatness speaks for itself. Only low grade people rock the boat because that is the only tool they have. Nobody made fun of Tim Tebow, because he is superior to them, and they would only be embarrassing themselves. If anything, unsuccessful men are systematically hostile and conspire to sabotage successful men, like the poor are to the rich, but they do it in some more surreptitious ways. Men certainly do not compliment the competition by calling them studs, except in the most remote academic analysis. For that matter, I just had "thecurrentyear" start insulting me in the chat room after I said that I got a lot of women flirting with me. It's like clockwork.

By the way, Stef describes himself as "very smart". I'm wondering what his basis is for saying that. Obviously opinion of self doesn't count.

Anonymous snipers don't fly with me. I challenge the negger to crawl out of the hole. Otherwise you have no business being here of all places.

That was proven very concretely in this survey. Greater science literacy and numeracy reduces alarmism a bit. But not among the people that are already alarmists before they pick up a pencil.

Chris Langan gives no proof that he has a high a IQ, which is why they say "estimated". "Estimated" = lie. IQ tests now don't even go up to to 200. There are also no records of Einstein etcetera taking IQ tests. That is common hoax data.

We probably wouldn't be dealing with SJW feminism now if it wasn't for struggling men grasping at excuses to rape women for ages. Step 1: tell women that they will be refused heaven (or ruining civilization) if they fornicate outside of marriage. Step 2: point at the contract when they say they aren't in the mood after they get married. Claim that it is equal because both sides are bound by it despite the fact that one side has far higher libido. Step 3: profit It doesn't take an activist with a fine tooth comb to understand the dilemma above. It has been a good lol of a scam, but now we are reaping the consequences of being on the political side associated with Abraham's and Muhammad's creepy crew. If ever men were so desperate to get laid that they wove complex fairy tales to do it, the Bible is it. Women reading these discussions will only be further creeped out and repelled by seeing continued support of this in addition to the miasma of the puahate/sluthate wing of MGTOW and MRA. I read some Christian Q&A thread about this topic a while ago because I wanted to see how Christian women felt about what they were being told. It was depressing. The men were all hammer to the anvil for it. The women were all trying to rationalize their way into the most nullifying interpretation.

They are not all wrong about empathy. It's technically difficult to have empathy for people that are unlike you. So they feel guilty about their lack of merit putting them in a better position than billions of other mediocre people. But they will never make any sacrifices out of their own lives to help anyone else. So too would all of those people that they empathize with never do the same for them if the situation was reversed. Talk is cheap. This is why people that play the empathy card are not concerned about sticking a fork in a cow's back. It's not others' suffering they care about. It's that their self-classification reflects anything they say about how others in their own class should be treated back to themselves as a benefit. That bullshit has discoverable limits. If you ask them whether the United States should fund health care for everyone on Earth that can't afford it they will suddenly be less enthusiastic because the 1% can't cover that many. They will need to contribute. So some excuse will be made. Even if we can't predict the exact excuse, we can generally predict that one will be forthcoming for every instance when it is in their power to change someone else's life. Empathy politics is really just a strategy of surreptitious self-promotion. It's no good if it costs you more than you receive. If they accuse you of being dumb or uneducated, that is easy. Issue the following challenge to them: a contest wherein you all take an IQ test or any test of their choice that they think measures that, then post public videos on YouTube showing your score certificates and stating your full names, then send the video links to all family, friends, co-workers and employers. Regardless of how you might guess at the result, they will completely wimp out, at which point you can put them in their place. Call them out on pre-emptively wimping out with blank slate to cover for themselves. It's a rhetorical challenge. People that fart big never have the shit to back it up. That is precisely why they fart big. People that have proof begin with proof, not with bluster. These people are little more than blustering trash talkers that need to be stomped down a notch or two. In a case like this humiliation is the kind of persuasion that is needed. There's Bryan Caplan's study, sure, but it's a lot more crushing to reveal how afraid of being tested the person you are talking to is. There were discussions on the LvMI forums about getting work as an economist. http://archive.freecapitalists.org/forums/t/22075.aspx

Inside the White House: Letters to the President You waste your time. Galactic emperors have no time for plebs.

More completely dissected, it is a failure to understand marginal logic. All required contribution types of a result simultaneously have a 100% marginal effect strength on that outcome. Ergo, given that having genes is categorically required to have any trait while being conventionally classified as "alive", the effect strength of genes is always 100%. Now let's get to a more useful question: how much does any specific gene affect IQ? To answer this you firstly need to specify a substitution, such as copyA -> copyB. Secondly, you need a crapload of clones to try every possible combination of copyB + every possible combination of every other gene. 1 million years later you know what difference switching from copyA to copyB makes. Or you could make a perfect model of the universe in a computer and leave a sim running for a while. That might take less than 1 million years. Neither are really true. On the face of it, the mechanisms for both are physically accessible, so there is a way to modulate them in both directions. IQ can be boosted by innumerable means of stimulants. Overeating does increase height by altering hormones. Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 is affected by insulin circulation. It's possible that the height increase in the past 100 years is to any extent a result of eating "too much" rather than a transition from being fed "too little" to being fed "enough". I.e, the threshold effect is speculation.

All IQ tests are fundamentally biased by having problem types whose solutions can be more or less familiar. However, IQ deniers never suggest any alternative because their arguments are a smokescreen for a hostility to their own intelligence being revealed and resulting in them having second rate status, or in some rare cases guilt about the bias working to their advantage. Furthermore, the effect of intelligence on success is largely suppressed by an anti-meritorious academic system from K to university and employment market. Schools already practice such absurdities as hiding high school exam scores from transcripts, prohibiting fail grades from being given and shirking the mandate in the Education Act to provide special education to students with special ability. Post-school you then have, at least, nepotism and a glass ceiling where no one moves up unless someone higher dies, quits or is fired. I can't quantify the lives ruined by frustration and ultimately depression like mine was. I can only say +1 to the category of high IQ and unhappy because of low IQers systematically preventing my ability from being used rather than because IQ is an inaccurate measure of ability.

I'm a track fan. I was a track champ in school and and studied some physiology pertaining to it. Even before puberty the top boys generally run faster than the top girls. After years of hormone influence it is even more imbalanced and the structural changes are largely irreversible. At least one important aspect in that category, the pelvis is a bit different in how the femur joint socket is oriented. Maybe the one important reversible aspect, boys drop in body fat by 50% and girls increase by 10% from age 12 to 16. A fairly recent study found that natural testosterone levels do not correlate with muscular protein synthesis, and women build muscle at the same rate as men on average. All of the variation is intragender. This means the male advantage is actually obtained before training starts. So I regard this news as destroying women's events. But I'm not surprised because the bureaucrats are clueless.