So, technology isolates and disconnects us from our fellow man, right?
Well, I'm not sure.
I just got email and internet unlimited data plan on my phone and am curious to see what it will do. Will I no longer to sit in front of my computer since I can do all my reading on the go? Or will I ignore everyone around me when out and about to check realclearpolitics.com?
On another note, netflix just introduced streaming movies for the Mac on xbox. I never will go to a movie rental store again, or buy a DVD again. Pretty amazing stuff, I think. Score one for isolation.
Finally, to decrease driver solitude and save gas money, the iphone will introduce an iphone app to match drivers and riders.
So...does face time matter now more or less now that environments are fungible?
Monday, December 29, 2008
Thursday, December 25, 2008
I got served
So, promoting women to be more sluttier and condemning Islam, I thought I found a good target in opposing Roissy's post
Thought Experiments
December 24, 2008 by roissy
Thought Experiment #1
All else equal, which girl is more likely to get pumped and dumped?:
a. an “adventurous” girl who played musical chairs with the mouths of five guys in a bar one night and banged a local emo rocker in the coatroom an hour after they met.
b. a virgin.
Thought Experiment #2
A normal, emotionally stable man with a good job has been on one date with a girl he likes. She is into him. He didn’t close, but feels confident it will happen soon. One night, in his favorite bar, one of the bartenders (a guy known to be plugged into the local social scene), unaware that the man has been on one date with the girl in this story, tells the man he saw the girl making out with a random dude a couple weeks before their first date, and that a few months ago she banged one of the other bartenders.
Would this man be
a. more likely
b. less likely
to arrange an inspired, creative second date with her? to pay for her drink on the second date? to see her for longer than three months after they’ve started screwing?
So my take is simple. Hey, let women be as slutty as they want. If you want to condemn someone, condemn meat eaters, condemn people who buy SUVs. Condemn Muslims, condemn religious fanatics who push religion. Condemn corrupt wall street goons. But slutty women? Come on.
Anyway, so this was my response:
Look Roissy, I know that you are FACTUALLY correct in saying that men will treat sluts and prudish women differently. That’s a law of human nature.
BUT, this is not to say that there remains a MORAL DOUBLE STANDARD in the world.
In the Islamic world, it’s ok for men to have multiple wives, while women who cheat on their husbands are pariahs in society.
Islam is a brutal religion. It pains me to see this blog extolling the same morality that Islam preaches.
We all know what evo psych says about human sexual behavior. Just try not to push it into the moral realm.
Eh. His response:
roissy
john smith:
"That’s a law of human nature."
would a person be happier if he lived more in accordance with human nature, or less?
"BUT, this is not to say that there remains a MORAL DOUBLE STANDARD in the world."
reasoned morality is an emergent outgrowth of human nature, and as a second order phenomenon, it fluctuates more wildly, which is why you can observe wide disparities in how one culture treats its sluts compared to another culture. naturally, is != ought, and human nature shouldn’t dictate to us how we conduct our lives, but it’s also true that the more removed our morality is from our relatively immutable evolved natures, the less happy we’ll feel and the more likely we’ll wind up screwing ourselves in the biggest market that matters — the sexual market.
"In the Islamic world, it’s ok for men to have multiple wives, while women who cheat on their husbands are pariahs in society."
double standards are a consequence of human nature. no one said life was fair.
"Islam is a brutal religion. It pains me to see this blog extolling the same morality that Islam preaches."
ugh, dude. you’re putting words in my blog. please don’t pull a chic. one of her is enough. one, polygamy would be a disaster for the west, which i’ve written about here. two, i obviously don’t advocate stoning adulterous women like the more regressive strains of islam. i do say that the male impulse to avoid committing to slutty girls is hardwired and serves a useful purpose — that of protecting men from becoming financially enslaved cockolds. since this impulse has ostensibly been with us for millions of years, it stands to reason that a morality which takes into account the greater danger of female infidelity and promiscuity and attempts to mitigate its expression will benefit a cooperative western-style society more than a morality that gives free rein to women to slut it up without consequence.
of course, the more women are shamed into being sexually chaste, the less fly-by-night nookie guys like me will haul home, but i never claimed that the good of the individual and the good of the whole were perfectly compatible.
"Just try not to push it into the moral realm."
you cannot sever morality from human nature. morality is just a highly evolved mechanism for maximizing the odds of your gene’s survival and replication through the strategy of reciprocal altruism and kin favoritism.
Anyway, slutty girls are still welcome. How many terrorists come from sexually liberal societies v. sexually repressive societies?
******
Update. Check out the comments section to see a debate between Roissy and some black chick. HBD meets seduction school-fascinating.
Thought Experiments
December 24, 2008 by roissy
Thought Experiment #1
All else equal, which girl is more likely to get pumped and dumped?:
a. an “adventurous” girl who played musical chairs with the mouths of five guys in a bar one night and banged a local emo rocker in the coatroom an hour after they met.
b. a virgin.
Thought Experiment #2
A normal, emotionally stable man with a good job has been on one date with a girl he likes. She is into him. He didn’t close, but feels confident it will happen soon. One night, in his favorite bar, one of the bartenders (a guy known to be plugged into the local social scene), unaware that the man has been on one date with the girl in this story, tells the man he saw the girl making out with a random dude a couple weeks before their first date, and that a few months ago she banged one of the other bartenders.
Would this man be
a. more likely
b. less likely
to arrange an inspired, creative second date with her? to pay for her drink on the second date? to see her for longer than three months after they’ve started screwing?
So my take is simple. Hey, let women be as slutty as they want. If you want to condemn someone, condemn meat eaters, condemn people who buy SUVs. Condemn Muslims, condemn religious fanatics who push religion. Condemn corrupt wall street goons. But slutty women? Come on.
Anyway, so this was my response:
Look Roissy, I know that you are FACTUALLY correct in saying that men will treat sluts and prudish women differently. That’s a law of human nature.
BUT, this is not to say that there remains a MORAL DOUBLE STANDARD in the world.
In the Islamic world, it’s ok for men to have multiple wives, while women who cheat on their husbands are pariahs in society.
Islam is a brutal religion. It pains me to see this blog extolling the same morality that Islam preaches.
We all know what evo psych says about human sexual behavior. Just try not to push it into the moral realm.
Eh. His response:
roissy
john smith:
"That’s a law of human nature."
would a person be happier if he lived more in accordance with human nature, or less?
"BUT, this is not to say that there remains a MORAL DOUBLE STANDARD in the world."
reasoned morality is an emergent outgrowth of human nature, and as a second order phenomenon, it fluctuates more wildly, which is why you can observe wide disparities in how one culture treats its sluts compared to another culture. naturally, is != ought, and human nature shouldn’t dictate to us how we conduct our lives, but it’s also true that the more removed our morality is from our relatively immutable evolved natures, the less happy we’ll feel and the more likely we’ll wind up screwing ourselves in the biggest market that matters — the sexual market.
"In the Islamic world, it’s ok for men to have multiple wives, while women who cheat on their husbands are pariahs in society."
double standards are a consequence of human nature. no one said life was fair.
"Islam is a brutal religion. It pains me to see this blog extolling the same morality that Islam preaches."
ugh, dude. you’re putting words in my blog. please don’t pull a chic. one of her is enough. one, polygamy would be a disaster for the west, which i’ve written about here. two, i obviously don’t advocate stoning adulterous women like the more regressive strains of islam. i do say that the male impulse to avoid committing to slutty girls is hardwired and serves a useful purpose — that of protecting men from becoming financially enslaved cockolds. since this impulse has ostensibly been with us for millions of years, it stands to reason that a morality which takes into account the greater danger of female infidelity and promiscuity and attempts to mitigate its expression will benefit a cooperative western-style society more than a morality that gives free rein to women to slut it up without consequence.
of course, the more women are shamed into being sexually chaste, the less fly-by-night nookie guys like me will haul home, but i never claimed that the good of the individual and the good of the whole were perfectly compatible.
"Just try not to push it into the moral realm."
you cannot sever morality from human nature. morality is just a highly evolved mechanism for maximizing the odds of your gene’s survival and replication through the strategy of reciprocal altruism and kin favoritism.
Anyway, slutty girls are still welcome. How many terrorists come from sexually liberal societies v. sexually repressive societies?
******
Update. Check out the comments section to see a debate between Roissy and some black chick. HBD meets seduction school-fascinating.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Gold from Saletan
Check this out from Saletan
Few genes are known to be decisive in determining life outcomes. Nutrition, training, and other genes matter. But the evidence that this gene significantly influences athletic ability is strong.
Now look at the frequency of the R and X variants in different populations. According to data published seven years ago in Human Molecular Genetics, the relative frequency of the X allele is 0.52 in Asians, 0.42 in whites, 0.27 in African-Americans, and 0.16 in Africans. If you break out the data further, the frequency of the XX genotype is 0.25 in Asians, 0.20 in European whites, 0.13 in African-Americans, and 0.01 in African Bantu. Conversely, the frequency of RR (the genotype for speed and power) is 0.25 in Asians, 0.36 in European whites, 0.60 in African-Americans, and 0.81 in African Bantu. Among Asians, you can expect to find one RR for every XX. Among whites, you can expect nearly two RRs for every XX. Among African-Americans, you can expect more than four RRs for every XX.
Is the order really so shocking, or just another confirmation of the Rushton scale.
I've had my share of arguments with people who deny that race is biologically meaningful. Many of them are dedicated to the proposition that all humans are created equal, not just in the sense of moral worth or treating each person on his merits, but literally, in the sense that no genetically based difference can be admitted in average ability between populations. That kind of egalitarian literalism—I call it liberal creationism—becomes harder and harder to sustain in the face of evidence such as the data on ACTN3.
Oh, it's sweet.
I just returned from traveling in a third world country with little prospects for the future, and the primary reason is that their people have too low IQ to develop meaningful industries that don't rely on natural resources or low salaries.
Few genes are known to be decisive in determining life outcomes. Nutrition, training, and other genes matter. But the evidence that this gene significantly influences athletic ability is strong.
Now look at the frequency of the R and X variants in different populations. According to data published seven years ago in Human Molecular Genetics, the relative frequency of the X allele is 0.52 in Asians, 0.42 in whites, 0.27 in African-Americans, and 0.16 in Africans. If you break out the data further, the frequency of the XX genotype is 0.25 in Asians, 0.20 in European whites, 0.13 in African-Americans, and 0.01 in African Bantu. Conversely, the frequency of RR (the genotype for speed and power) is 0.25 in Asians, 0.36 in European whites, 0.60 in African-Americans, and 0.81 in African Bantu. Among Asians, you can expect to find one RR for every XX. Among whites, you can expect nearly two RRs for every XX. Among African-Americans, you can expect more than four RRs for every XX.
Is the order really so shocking, or just another confirmation of the Rushton scale.
I've had my share of arguments with people who deny that race is biologically meaningful. Many of them are dedicated to the proposition that all humans are created equal, not just in the sense of moral worth or treating each person on his merits, but literally, in the sense that no genetically based difference can be admitted in average ability between populations. That kind of egalitarian literalism—I call it liberal creationism—becomes harder and harder to sustain in the face of evidence such as the data on ACTN3.
Oh, it's sweet.
I just returned from traveling in a third world country with little prospects for the future, and the primary reason is that their people have too low IQ to develop meaningful industries that don't rely on natural resources or low salaries.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
The Attack
I´m late, but how much else is there to say? Islam is a brutal, barbaric religion that justifies killing teenage girls in cold blood.
I´m just thankful that Thomas Friedman wrote this gem in the nytimes
On Feb. 6, 2006, three Pakistanis died in Peshawar and Lahore during violent street protests against Danish cartoons that had satirized the Prophet Muhammad. More such mass protests followed weeks later. When Pakistanis and other Muslims are willing to take to the streets, even suffer death, to protest an insulting cartoon published in Denmark, is it fair to ask: Who in the Muslim world, who in Pakistan, is ready to take to the streets to protest the mass murders of real people, not cartoon characters, right next door in Mumbai?
After all, if 10 young Indians from a splinter wing of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party traveled by boat to Pakistan, shot up two hotels in Karachi and the central train station, killed at least 173 people, and then, for good measure, murdered the imam and his wife at a Saudi-financed mosque while they were cradling their 2-year-old son — purely because they were Sunni Muslims — where would we be today? The entire Muslim world would be aflame and in the streets.
...
And here is the key;
But at the end of the day, terrorists often are just acting on what they sense the majority really wants but doesn’t dare do or say. That is why the most powerful deterrent to their behavior is when the community as a whole says: “No more. What you have done in murdering defenseless men, women and children has brought shame on us and on you.”
I hope this causes waves. Islam should be questioned with the same force that Christianity is constantly in the US.
Perhaps I´m one of the few who voted for Obama in the hope that his election would discredit the rhetoric of Al-Qaeda. Maybe I was to idealistic.
I´m just thankful that Thomas Friedman wrote this gem in the nytimes
On Feb. 6, 2006, three Pakistanis died in Peshawar and Lahore during violent street protests against Danish cartoons that had satirized the Prophet Muhammad. More such mass protests followed weeks later. When Pakistanis and other Muslims are willing to take to the streets, even suffer death, to protest an insulting cartoon published in Denmark, is it fair to ask: Who in the Muslim world, who in Pakistan, is ready to take to the streets to protest the mass murders of real people, not cartoon characters, right next door in Mumbai?
After all, if 10 young Indians from a splinter wing of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party traveled by boat to Pakistan, shot up two hotels in Karachi and the central train station, killed at least 173 people, and then, for good measure, murdered the imam and his wife at a Saudi-financed mosque while they were cradling their 2-year-old son — purely because they were Sunni Muslims — where would we be today? The entire Muslim world would be aflame and in the streets.
...
And here is the key;
But at the end of the day, terrorists often are just acting on what they sense the majority really wants but doesn’t dare do or say. That is why the most powerful deterrent to their behavior is when the community as a whole says: “No more. What you have done in murdering defenseless men, women and children has brought shame on us and on you.”
I hope this causes waves. Islam should be questioned with the same force that Christianity is constantly in the US.
Perhaps I´m one of the few who voted for Obama in the hope that his election would discredit the rhetoric of Al-Qaeda. Maybe I was to idealistic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)