Some people are more rational than others. For example, studies have shown that men are more rational than women, by about half a standard deviation. What does this mean? What does rational really mean? Being rational is believing something according to logic. I see it as being objective. The studies showing that men are more rational than women, showed that women believe in things that are generally regarded as not based on logic.
As an Australian, saying that I am a liberal would mean I am an extreme conservative hierarchist AKA Rupert Murdoch's slaves. So that comment just confirms my own biased view that Americans are stupid and narcissistic and unlikely to ask the right questions to pick the right frame for the job. I have just given a parable that answers "could you…". Your use of "liberal" examples that the frame is important.
(Sowing doubt is what Kremlin bot-slaves do. )
Logic is a hindsight with-in a frame. One will not be saved from confirmation bias by using logic alone. If one is deep within a preferred frame, i.e. hunkered down in bunker… it may feel smart, but just because your survival chances are improved does not mean you will survive. Death comes for all of us.
In my own pool I know I run thoughts in parallel more than my associates. This is called a Divergent thinking style BTW, if Kolb learning styles are a thing for you. You can look up your own, I am not here to diagnose.
Often (when our world-building empathy allows me insight into the neuro-divergence around me) I have to trim down the connotative power of my "verbosity" when speaking with others (also I have some fractal-ish and a bit mind's eyes, and a narrative voice (more verbal powers -- but only three languages ) which, among others, my more autistic friends do not have, (I would say that "visual learners" mostly lack any mind's eye). I am not a super-recogniser, I have an average ability to recognize face and as a male I see colour but will never be a tetrachrome. I _think_ I have a better memory than most, and that this covers for G in many instances… as I said logic is a hindsight, so YMMV. This might be because that the memories themselves have more affective power than what others around me share, more like pain than joy.
Feel free to the look up the other strange words and jargon that come to me with an easy facility, I'd never call that ability "intelligence" of course, otherwise I would fall into your trap.
One of the reasons Australians do not like the ex-Australian Rupert Murdoch is that he re-reinforces how people get sacred rather than world building in a healthy way. Example: three decades ago his minions in Australia imported "political correctness" into Australia from the USA, Australia's are larrikins by identity so his importers tried to hide behind that label when this foreign product was brought in, forgetting that larrikins would then be hunting down nobody in AUS as both the sin of "political correctness" and the critique of it are foreign to Australian sensitivities. Three decades later his sky minions now import "wokeness" which also didn't exist before these critiques where brought in, but then they are trying to control the narrative, rather than helping to world build in a healthy way. So please be aware if you use any labels developed in the American frame, they will be like water off a ducks back. Without that frame of reference you will look stupid even if you are not.
That is not a summary or a simplification. It may even be longer. It is not possible for a liberal, especially one with poor spatial ability like yourself, to be straightforward, because their strategy is to be popular rather than find the truth. I use the American terms because they are more universal.
"...studies showing that men are more rational than women, showed that women believe in things that are generally regarded as not based on logic. "
No general argument here. However, I'd add a more positive spin. Logic/rationality ain't everything. Indeed, you seem to indicate that the bulk of people probably don't logically/rationally make many/most decisions. That's where my wife comes into play in my life. I tend to make rationale decisions mostly (I think?). However, when it comes to people and interactions with them, the wife's opinion has most always been superior to mine. If she feels unsure of the individual(s) in question, then I go with her opinion. Emotionalism and perhaps a little irrationality is her *strength*--not a weakness in dealing with others of the same ilk.
Men and women are "complementary"--not necessarily equal. But hey, that's just me.
Women on average have higher levels of empathy than men, and a greater interest in people as opposed to "things". Your wife may be able to read people particularly well because of this, not necessarily due to lower levels of rationalism. It is possible to be highly rational and highly empathetic, just rare.
The thing put together here in this post simply shows a bias for one's biases. I.E. Confirmation bias. As someone mildly not autistic I've noticed peeps do not yet get or "understand" that the (rational/logical mechanics) is a hindsight: 1 + 1 does not predict two, it lets you look back and go AHA!
Reducing reason to a simple mapping of self-redundancy (formal logic/mathematics before Gödel), and calling that ability as smart is dumb. It can perhaps can help test attempts in the future within other frameworks, but is not healthy worldbuilding per se. Also, if these other frameworks are created from within a bias (which we all do because we are alive in the world)(a bias or lead by which you have gathered (recursively into the studies thus also framed in similar ways/frames/biases) then those just-so stories will be confirmed, and you will have show 1 + 1 = 2 as "predicted".
How are you to overcome all this? What framework will you have to use?
Being rational is often rationalization, the reasons may or may not be reasonable, for the ratios may not work in world building, especially if one excludes evolution of Homo sp. in bands (by) creating co-operative insurance in unpredictable habitats and climes, [as your just-so stories do exclude, the model has no history, no world, and simply repeats a bias as a real possibility — no news there].
In unpredictable habitats and climes hindsight logic doesn't help so much as have all bases covered if they occur, despite peeps dying before they turn 30, and if these events do not occur in a life time, it might look irrational to support those activities, but then, like, cataclysm and survival don't care about the rational. Shit happens. How do you remember all activities or practices when people die young, how do you remember them across generations? When it is not "rational" or smart as you call it for the short-lived to maintain them?? Evolution does care about the rational in this case. The rational as smart is over-rated. (The irrational as smart is also over-rated).
Also your post concentrates on the individual's ability as an individual, but if the self is an illusion, then the world is real, and focusing on the rational to bolster (your) worldbuilding preferences is not a good look in the world. When we build the world, we do not predict (except in pathological worldbuilding like conspiracy theorizing & enacting) but seek to cover all bases, in which case what is "smart" is a range of futures coped with, and the ability to not force choice before their time. This may appear irrational within a short termist view (like a lifetime), but this is what emotions do in nourishing the baby to come, and by extension the world. It is not rational to have children so cope with that buddy. The future is not a rational place because we have no hindsight to it yet, one cannot be smart about the future, only the world can be smart about the future. Of course neither the world nor the future "exist", that's why we are world-builders as much as we are body builders, and for the same reason give that "corpus" an individual view, which your focus on in your post. But these things co-evolve, and where is that in your frameworks? Where in your framework are your competing frameworks?
A better line of approach is to game-theory the pathologies of narcissism and psychopathy which parasitize the world (builders) and reduce human survivablity (in often brutally "logically" ways of the cool-aid death cult), and that "irrational" dumb stuff often prevents, disciplines and eradicates. Whether narcissists and their subset psychopaths are recidivist social hierarchical baboons (throwbacks to primate personalities pre-dating the paleolithic egalitarian r/evolution) or recent social parasites on the world of us, I will leave for others to discuss.
Sorry I don't really understand the question. I suspect you are a liberal who is being guilty of verbosity and verbal diarrhea in an attempt to sound smart and sow doubt. Could you summarise or rephrase in a simpler way? Thanks.
Enlightening piece. This all makes a great deal of sense and aligns closely with my previous beliefs regarding the irrationality of women and pillocks. The ven diagram at the end does open up some additional questions, however. It implies that a person will be conservative if they are in peak physical condition or if they have high spatial intelligence. A liberal person who embodies these qualities would be placed within the center of the diagram and no further due to being 'liberal'. This implies that this person would only possess mediocre intelligence and health. However, I don't think that this describes intellectual liberals fairly. I feel as though a liberal with high spatial intelligence and in good health (myself for example) would not be categorized correctly under such a model. Further, I think the labels 'conservative' and 'liberal' might be a little vague and over encompassing. It is hard to say whether conservatives or liberals are more rational. I have seen evidence that indicates the highest intelligence group is actually white liberals, and the lowest is unaffiliated with extreme conservatives following closely. Conservatives may have been more rational in the past, but I believe that the political environment is changing rapidly. Perhaps it is still true that a wholly rational and healthy person is likely to be conservative, but I do not find it to be true that the average conservative is more rational than the average liberal.
Very interesting. You are a liberal? By that I mean you generally prefer a system of equality over hierarchy? You believe that dumb people should have equal privileges and rights to smart people, and that nasty people should have equal privileges and rights to nice people?
My general belief is that if someone has above average immune health and above average spatial intelligence, then there is almost no way they could be a liberal. So if you are the exception I find that very interesting.
I can totally believe that liberals are slightly more intelligent than conservatives on average. I didn't mean to imply that conservatives are smarter, only that they have a spatial tilt which gives them a higher spatial IQ, but an equal or lower ability to reason and memorise.
I support equality of rights for all persons, but not equity of outcomes. All persons should have common rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc. I don't think that dumb people should have the same privileges in the sense that they should have equal incomes, or equal material wealth. I do think that 'nasty' people should have rights, like any other citizen should. A society should reprimand this type of person by imprisoning them, should they commit a crime. If they are just a douchebag, then shame them socially. Perhaps I would be classified as a classical liberal or even a libertarian. I am still trying to determine where exactly I lie on the spectrum of political affiliations. Perhaps you could move me away from liberalism.
Hierarchy is inevitable. It is the result of differences between persons. Some people are incredibly efficient (pareto principle) and some people are essentially useless. I don't advocate for the abolishment of hierarchy. I merely advocate for fair distribution of wealth. Wealth tends to distribute itself in a way that is very disadvantageous for people at the bottom end of the spectrum. You might say that this is fair. They get compensated in accordance to their skills, which they tend to have few of. However, it is hard for me to accept that such high levels of wealth inequality are the cause of differences in pure merit. Wealthy people have more opportunities to create and amass wealth. This is the Matthew principle. "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". In a society that does not have the proper regulations, laws, or guidelines in place to balance wealth in a way that is truly fair, manipulative, machiavellian people tend to abuse the system. Looking at the current levels of wealth inequality in the US, or even Australia, it appears to be skewed in a way that is extremely advantageous to the aristocratic class. I have not done an empirical analysis to confirm my beliefs. I lack the mathematical and statistical capability to test my assumption. But I would be very surprised to find that the current level of wealth inequality is actually fair, and is a true reflection of the capabilities of persons.
I agree with your understanding of wealth. I think that a person's wealth is often due to individual ability, and sometimes due to group ability and cohesion (eg. Jewish nepotism), and is sometimes due to luck, or lack of it.
To me, you sound slightly conservative or centrist. Your description leads me to think you support: abortion, gun rights, a moderate amount of immigration, female voting rights and democracy in general. You are against: affirmative action and capital punishment.
Please correct me if its totally wrong.
According to the HGFM, you should be medium-strong in terms of hunter-gatherer fitness levels. If you wish to, you can let me know if you are above average or below average in the following categories:
-height
-strength/muscularity (and is this innate or due to training)
-immunity (do you feel the need to vaccinate, are you good looking)
"To me, you sound slightly conservative or centrist."
Maybe so! I've found myself identifying as centrist in parts of my life. And it is undoubtedly true that I hold some conservative principles.
" Your description leads me to think you support: abortion, gun rights, a moderate amount of immigration, female voting rights and democracy in general. You are against: affirmative action and capital punishment."
Mostly correct. I support gun rights, gender neutral voting rights, democracy. Abortion is a tough one for me. I believe that all life deserves a chance and that fetuses are human life from inception. I believe that abortion is becoming a way for women to murder their fetuses without consequence. Most women aren't like this, but how do we stop the actual killers without any oversight? Rape victims and mothers whose lives are at risk should have access to an abortion no questions asked. Additionally, if abortion is banned, women will just engage in unsafe and illegal abortion. Is that a beneficial trade off? Perhaps. Further, women have more rights than males when it comes to fetal control. A women feels as though that a man shall be financially responsible at all stages, from the incipient point of sexual entry, to the final age of 18. And he is, legally. Women think that they should have the right to abortion (without reason) at all stages in pregnancy, but in contrast, they think that men should be financially and legally hooked from the point of entry. More deliberation needed on this one!
Definitely against affirmative action. Capital Punishment is another one that I am on the fence on. I like eugenics, I just want to ensure that it gets done ethically and properly. The death penalty is a way to do this. Yes, some innocent people are executed. But is that really worse than being imprisoned for your whole life?
Height - 5'11
Strength/Musculature - Average. I don't train
Immunity - Strong. Rarely get sick and have a family with a history of long lives. Above average attractiveness. I do vaccinate. I haven't generally felt any qualms about my previous vaccinations, but I have had some regarding the Covid-19 vaccine. I need to do a deep dive into whether or not the vaccination was beneficial to me or to the populace as a whole. I know that the long term efficacy is really poor. I got a double dose and have never been infected with Covid.
Spatial Ability - 125 - 130 Spatial IQ
Hairiness - Average or below average. I would say I'm more on the feminine side. Soft facial structure, weak facial hair and a generally unthreatening aura.
Body Symmetry - Generally symmetric. No serious flaws.
Thanks for the reply. That all sounds extremely reasonable, and definitely more conservative than liberal. I dont even think its possible for a liberal to enjoy my articles, which is why I was intrigued. Being pro eugenics and anti affirmative action would invite accusations of racism and nazi sympathies, and those alone put you firmly in the conservative camp regardless of your position on other issues.
It sounds like your spatial intelligence and your immunity raise your HG fitness levels above average, more so than your strength/testosterone. Which is to be expected for intelligent people, who typically have more slender features. It also explains why you have the word rational in your name. Therefore I declare the HGFM, as well as the spatial IQ = rationalism theory, to be largely correct.
"Being pro eugenics and anti affirmative action would invite accusations of racism and nazi sympathies"
Lol, so true. Today I learned: I am a conservative. I don't really like labels much, but after some thought, you're definitely right. I lean more conservative than liberal.
I really enjoyed this one Windsor. This makes a lot of sense where people don't neatly fit in strict categories in regards to the beliefs they share on social media; for example, depending on where they sit on the ideology spectrum. But, I was also thinking that in a work context, would you say the HGFM still applies with some nuances (or another annotated Venn diagram) especially in cases of office work and remote work conditions / environments where the goals are more abstract compared to our ancient past?
Thanks, glad you liked it. Are you asking about the factors relating to work competency? High HG fitness definitely helps for some jobs (those that require strength, spatial IQ or physical attractiveness, like modeling), while other jobs are the opposite (therapist, journalist, comedian, perhaps even politician).
Anything IT related requires logic and truth-seeking instincts, which is why its mostly above average IQ men in IT.
Yes exactly, I was thinking how to transpose those fitness models, and attributes, into our sedentary jobs. Haha, I agree with you about the journalists and politicians!
Another insight I heard today, that got my attention, was that the newer social media platforms manage to get a young person to engage with content in one second. Tiktok is the most addictive example of this. I mean one second is so fast; but in the context that you've mentioned of our ancient gene-evolutionary past, spanning about 2 million years, I am concerned how platforms like Tiltok hijack our instinctual reactions that in the past would have helped us find an opportunity or identify a threat. What are your thoughts on this?
I completely agree, it is a serious concern and should be regulated, especially for children. Unfortunately the west is no longer cohesive and so smaller corporate interests are able to overcome the interest of the whole group, and many things that should be regulated are not.
Social media, TV, videogames, sugar, porn, drugs, alcohol etc. They are all an evolutionary mismatch and it is hard for us to maintain self control in the face of constant temptation.
ps I am autistic and by definition not popular, nor care to be.
Autistic people have good spatial ability and don't talk so much. Schizophrenia maybe.
As an Australian, saying that I am a liberal would mean I am an extreme conservative hierarchist AKA Rupert Murdoch's slaves. So that comment just confirms my own biased view that Americans are stupid and narcissistic and unlikely to ask the right questions to pick the right frame for the job. I have just given a parable that answers "could you…". Your use of "liberal" examples that the frame is important.
(Sowing doubt is what Kremlin bot-slaves do. )
Logic is a hindsight with-in a frame. One will not be saved from confirmation bias by using logic alone. If one is deep within a preferred frame, i.e. hunkered down in bunker… it may feel smart, but just because your survival chances are improved does not mean you will survive. Death comes for all of us.
Just-so stories are prime territory for confirmation bias. Without querying the frames one uses, logic will get you looking deeply into the pool where you can admire yourself in infinite grandiosity. One cn live forever there. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0048393120944223?journalCode=posa
In my own pool I know I run thoughts in parallel more than my associates. This is called a Divergent thinking style BTW, if Kolb learning styles are a thing for you. You can look up your own, I am not here to diagnose.
Often (when our world-building empathy allows me insight into the neuro-divergence around me) I have to trim down the connotative power of my "verbosity" when speaking with others (also I have some fractal-ish and a bit mind's eyes, and a narrative voice (more verbal powers -- but only three languages ) which, among others, my more autistic friends do not have, (I would say that "visual learners" mostly lack any mind's eye). I am not a super-recogniser, I have an average ability to recognize face and as a male I see colour but will never be a tetrachrome. I _think_ I have a better memory than most, and that this covers for G in many instances… as I said logic is a hindsight, so YMMV. This might be because that the memories themselves have more affective power than what others around me share, more like pain than joy.
As for the hierarchist comment see: https://hbr.org/2016/07/research-narcissists-dont-like-flat-organizations
Feel free to the look up the other strange words and jargon that come to me with an easy facility, I'd never call that ability "intelligence" of course, otherwise I would fall into your trap.
One of the reasons Australians do not like the ex-Australian Rupert Murdoch is that he re-reinforces how people get sacred rather than world building in a healthy way. Example: three decades ago his minions in Australia imported "political correctness" into Australia from the USA, Australia's are larrikins by identity so his importers tried to hide behind that label when this foreign product was brought in, forgetting that larrikins would then be hunting down nobody in AUS as both the sin of "political correctness" and the critique of it are foreign to Australian sensitivities. Three decades later his sky minions now import "wokeness" which also didn't exist before these critiques where brought in, but then they are trying to control the narrative, rather than helping to world build in a healthy way. So please be aware if you use any labels developed in the American frame, they will be like water off a ducks back. Without that frame of reference you will look stupid even if you are not.
That is not a summary or a simplification. It may even be longer. It is not possible for a liberal, especially one with poor spatial ability like yourself, to be straightforward, because their strategy is to be popular rather than find the truth. I use the American terms because they are more universal.
"...studies showing that men are more rational than women, showed that women believe in things that are generally regarded as not based on logic. "
No general argument here. However, I'd add a more positive spin. Logic/rationality ain't everything. Indeed, you seem to indicate that the bulk of people probably don't logically/rationally make many/most decisions. That's where my wife comes into play in my life. I tend to make rationale decisions mostly (I think?). However, when it comes to people and interactions with them, the wife's opinion has most always been superior to mine. If she feels unsure of the individual(s) in question, then I go with her opinion. Emotionalism and perhaps a little irrationality is her *strength*--not a weakness in dealing with others of the same ilk.
Men and women are "complementary"--not necessarily equal. But hey, that's just me.
Women on average have higher levels of empathy than men, and a greater interest in people as opposed to "things". Your wife may be able to read people particularly well because of this, not necessarily due to lower levels of rationalism. It is possible to be highly rational and highly empathetic, just rare.
The thing put together here in this post simply shows a bias for one's biases. I.E. Confirmation bias. As someone mildly not autistic I've noticed peeps do not yet get or "understand" that the (rational/logical mechanics) is a hindsight: 1 + 1 does not predict two, it lets you look back and go AHA!
Reducing reason to a simple mapping of self-redundancy (formal logic/mathematics before Gödel), and calling that ability as smart is dumb. It can perhaps can help test attempts in the future within other frameworks, but is not healthy worldbuilding per se. Also, if these other frameworks are created from within a bias (which we all do because we are alive in the world)(a bias or lead by which you have gathered (recursively into the studies thus also framed in similar ways/frames/biases) then those just-so stories will be confirmed, and you will have show 1 + 1 = 2 as "predicted".
How are you to overcome all this? What framework will you have to use?
Being rational is often rationalization, the reasons may or may not be reasonable, for the ratios may not work in world building, especially if one excludes evolution of Homo sp. in bands (by) creating co-operative insurance in unpredictable habitats and climes, [as your just-so stories do exclude, the model has no history, no world, and simply repeats a bias as a real possibility — no news there].
In unpredictable habitats and climes hindsight logic doesn't help so much as have all bases covered if they occur, despite peeps dying before they turn 30, and if these events do not occur in a life time, it might look irrational to support those activities, but then, like, cataclysm and survival don't care about the rational. Shit happens. How do you remember all activities or practices when people die young, how do you remember them across generations? When it is not "rational" or smart as you call it for the short-lived to maintain them?? Evolution does care about the rational in this case. The rational as smart is over-rated. (The irrational as smart is also over-rated).
Also your post concentrates on the individual's ability as an individual, but if the self is an illusion, then the world is real, and focusing on the rational to bolster (your) worldbuilding preferences is not a good look in the world. When we build the world, we do not predict (except in pathological worldbuilding like conspiracy theorizing & enacting) but seek to cover all bases, in which case what is "smart" is a range of futures coped with, and the ability to not force choice before their time. This may appear irrational within a short termist view (like a lifetime), but this is what emotions do in nourishing the baby to come, and by extension the world. It is not rational to have children so cope with that buddy. The future is not a rational place because we have no hindsight to it yet, one cannot be smart about the future, only the world can be smart about the future. Of course neither the world nor the future "exist", that's why we are world-builders as much as we are body builders, and for the same reason give that "corpus" an individual view, which your focus on in your post. But these things co-evolve, and where is that in your frameworks? Where in your framework are your competing frameworks?
A better line of approach is to game-theory the pathologies of narcissism and psychopathy which parasitize the world (builders) and reduce human survivablity (in often brutally "logically" ways of the cool-aid death cult), and that "irrational" dumb stuff often prevents, disciplines and eradicates. Whether narcissists and their subset psychopaths are recidivist social hierarchical baboons (throwbacks to primate personalities pre-dating the paleolithic egalitarian r/evolution) or recent social parasites on the world of us, I will leave for others to discuss.
Sorry I don't really understand the question. I suspect you are a liberal who is being guilty of verbosity and verbal diarrhea in an attempt to sound smart and sow doubt. Could you summarise or rephrase in a simpler way? Thanks.
Enlightening piece. This all makes a great deal of sense and aligns closely with my previous beliefs regarding the irrationality of women and pillocks. The ven diagram at the end does open up some additional questions, however. It implies that a person will be conservative if they are in peak physical condition or if they have high spatial intelligence. A liberal person who embodies these qualities would be placed within the center of the diagram and no further due to being 'liberal'. This implies that this person would only possess mediocre intelligence and health. However, I don't think that this describes intellectual liberals fairly. I feel as though a liberal with high spatial intelligence and in good health (myself for example) would not be categorized correctly under such a model. Further, I think the labels 'conservative' and 'liberal' might be a little vague and over encompassing. It is hard to say whether conservatives or liberals are more rational. I have seen evidence that indicates the highest intelligence group is actually white liberals, and the lowest is unaffiliated with extreme conservatives following closely. Conservatives may have been more rational in the past, but I believe that the political environment is changing rapidly. Perhaps it is still true that a wholly rational and healthy person is likely to be conservative, but I do not find it to be true that the average conservative is more rational than the average liberal.
emilkirkegaard.com/p/conservatives-arent-stupid
Very interesting. You are a liberal? By that I mean you generally prefer a system of equality over hierarchy? You believe that dumb people should have equal privileges and rights to smart people, and that nasty people should have equal privileges and rights to nice people?
My general belief is that if someone has above average immune health and above average spatial intelligence, then there is almost no way they could be a liberal. So if you are the exception I find that very interesting.
I can totally believe that liberals are slightly more intelligent than conservatives on average. I didn't mean to imply that conservatives are smarter, only that they have a spatial tilt which gives them a higher spatial IQ, but an equal or lower ability to reason and memorise.
I support equality of rights for all persons, but not equity of outcomes. All persons should have common rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc. I don't think that dumb people should have the same privileges in the sense that they should have equal incomes, or equal material wealth. I do think that 'nasty' people should have rights, like any other citizen should. A society should reprimand this type of person by imprisoning them, should they commit a crime. If they are just a douchebag, then shame them socially. Perhaps I would be classified as a classical liberal or even a libertarian. I am still trying to determine where exactly I lie on the spectrum of political affiliations. Perhaps you could move me away from liberalism.
Hierarchy is inevitable. It is the result of differences between persons. Some people are incredibly efficient (pareto principle) and some people are essentially useless. I don't advocate for the abolishment of hierarchy. I merely advocate for fair distribution of wealth. Wealth tends to distribute itself in a way that is very disadvantageous for people at the bottom end of the spectrum. You might say that this is fair. They get compensated in accordance to their skills, which they tend to have few of. However, it is hard for me to accept that such high levels of wealth inequality are the cause of differences in pure merit. Wealthy people have more opportunities to create and amass wealth. This is the Matthew principle. "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". In a society that does not have the proper regulations, laws, or guidelines in place to balance wealth in a way that is truly fair, manipulative, machiavellian people tend to abuse the system. Looking at the current levels of wealth inequality in the US, or even Australia, it appears to be skewed in a way that is extremely advantageous to the aristocratic class. I have not done an empirical analysis to confirm my beliefs. I lack the mathematical and statistical capability to test my assumption. But I would be very surprised to find that the current level of wealth inequality is actually fair, and is a true reflection of the capabilities of persons.
I agree with your understanding of wealth. I think that a person's wealth is often due to individual ability, and sometimes due to group ability and cohesion (eg. Jewish nepotism), and is sometimes due to luck, or lack of it.
To me, you sound slightly conservative or centrist. Your description leads me to think you support: abortion, gun rights, a moderate amount of immigration, female voting rights and democracy in general. You are against: affirmative action and capital punishment.
Please correct me if its totally wrong.
According to the HGFM, you should be medium-strong in terms of hunter-gatherer fitness levels. If you wish to, you can let me know if you are above average or below average in the following categories:
-height
-strength/muscularity (and is this innate or due to training)
-immunity (do you feel the need to vaccinate, are you good looking)
-spatial ability
-hairiness
-body symmetry (no abnormalities or disabilities)
"To me, you sound slightly conservative or centrist."
Maybe so! I've found myself identifying as centrist in parts of my life. And it is undoubtedly true that I hold some conservative principles.
" Your description leads me to think you support: abortion, gun rights, a moderate amount of immigration, female voting rights and democracy in general. You are against: affirmative action and capital punishment."
Mostly correct. I support gun rights, gender neutral voting rights, democracy. Abortion is a tough one for me. I believe that all life deserves a chance and that fetuses are human life from inception. I believe that abortion is becoming a way for women to murder their fetuses without consequence. Most women aren't like this, but how do we stop the actual killers without any oversight? Rape victims and mothers whose lives are at risk should have access to an abortion no questions asked. Additionally, if abortion is banned, women will just engage in unsafe and illegal abortion. Is that a beneficial trade off? Perhaps. Further, women have more rights than males when it comes to fetal control. A women feels as though that a man shall be financially responsible at all stages, from the incipient point of sexual entry, to the final age of 18. And he is, legally. Women think that they should have the right to abortion (without reason) at all stages in pregnancy, but in contrast, they think that men should be financially and legally hooked from the point of entry. More deliberation needed on this one!
Definitely against affirmative action. Capital Punishment is another one that I am on the fence on. I like eugenics, I just want to ensure that it gets done ethically and properly. The death penalty is a way to do this. Yes, some innocent people are executed. But is that really worse than being imprisoned for your whole life?
Height - 5'11
Strength/Musculature - Average. I don't train
Immunity - Strong. Rarely get sick and have a family with a history of long lives. Above average attractiveness. I do vaccinate. I haven't generally felt any qualms about my previous vaccinations, but I have had some regarding the Covid-19 vaccine. I need to do a deep dive into whether or not the vaccination was beneficial to me or to the populace as a whole. I know that the long term efficacy is really poor. I got a double dose and have never been infected with Covid.
Spatial Ability - 125 - 130 Spatial IQ
Hairiness - Average or below average. I would say I'm more on the feminine side. Soft facial structure, weak facial hair and a generally unthreatening aura.
Body Symmetry - Generally symmetric. No serious flaws.
Thanks for the reply. That all sounds extremely reasonable, and definitely more conservative than liberal. I dont even think its possible for a liberal to enjoy my articles, which is why I was intrigued. Being pro eugenics and anti affirmative action would invite accusations of racism and nazi sympathies, and those alone put you firmly in the conservative camp regardless of your position on other issues.
It sounds like your spatial intelligence and your immunity raise your HG fitness levels above average, more so than your strength/testosterone. Which is to be expected for intelligent people, who typically have more slender features. It also explains why you have the word rational in your name. Therefore I declare the HGFM, as well as the spatial IQ = rationalism theory, to be largely correct.
"Being pro eugenics and anti affirmative action would invite accusations of racism and nazi sympathies"
Lol, so true. Today I learned: I am a conservative. I don't really like labels much, but after some thought, you're definitely right. I lean more conservative than liberal.
I really enjoyed this one Windsor. This makes a lot of sense where people don't neatly fit in strict categories in regards to the beliefs they share on social media; for example, depending on where they sit on the ideology spectrum. But, I was also thinking that in a work context, would you say the HGFM still applies with some nuances (or another annotated Venn diagram) especially in cases of office work and remote work conditions / environments where the goals are more abstract compared to our ancient past?
Thanks, glad you liked it. Are you asking about the factors relating to work competency? High HG fitness definitely helps for some jobs (those that require strength, spatial IQ or physical attractiveness, like modeling), while other jobs are the opposite (therapist, journalist, comedian, perhaps even politician).
Anything IT related requires logic and truth-seeking instincts, which is why its mostly above average IQ men in IT.
Yes exactly, I was thinking how to transpose those fitness models, and attributes, into our sedentary jobs. Haha, I agree with you about the journalists and politicians!
Another insight I heard today, that got my attention, was that the newer social media platforms manage to get a young person to engage with content in one second. Tiktok is the most addictive example of this. I mean one second is so fast; but in the context that you've mentioned of our ancient gene-evolutionary past, spanning about 2 million years, I am concerned how platforms like Tiltok hijack our instinctual reactions that in the past would have helped us find an opportunity or identify a threat. What are your thoughts on this?
I completely agree, it is a serious concern and should be regulated, especially for children. Unfortunately the west is no longer cohesive and so smaller corporate interests are able to overcome the interest of the whole group, and many things that should be regulated are not.
Social media, TV, videogames, sugar, porn, drugs, alcohol etc. They are all an evolutionary mismatch and it is hard for us to maintain self control in the face of constant temptation.