GENIUS FORUMS

Cory Duchesne wrote:Ok, I'm not trying to make a one sized fits all graph, all I'm doing is a looking at a particular country

I see. This narrows it down quite a bit.

It's not that simple. I'm taking into account the respect certain parties have for science, and the efforts made at regulating for the sake things like environmental conservation, nuclear disarmament, health care, carbon emissions, education, etc.

A person with a rational mentality would have respect for those things. Since US liberals are not rational, I would say they're just doing what others are telling them, or holding those views to oppose another group, or achieve selfish aims.

Nah, among authoritarians, there are loads of significant variation. Likewise with Anarchists.

An authoritarian wants to forcibly control people, and an anarchist wants to forcibly bring about a lack of control - so that is pretty identical.

No. Like I said above - There are many breeds of socialists, and there are many different breeds of capitalists.

A capitalist wants to have more than others, and a socialists wants others to not have more than himself - the mentality is one of selfishness.

Being as independent as possible is anarchism, and we can see that anarchism is not logical in relation to our current situation.

An enlightened person is wholly independent, and yet he would cooperate with others for rational objectives. On the other hand, both anarchism and authoritarianism would ultimately fail if they are not wise.

I think your "rational politics" sounds pretty pie in the sky and ignores our current human nature.

Common human nature is irrational and will always lead to trouble, so it needs to be ignored when formulating any system.

About nice guys or bad boys - the truly masculine male is the opposite of both of them, as he does not want women at all. The bad boys are the cult leader types, while the nice guys are the provider types, and both their activities are directed towards attracting/attending to women.

Dhodges,

But there is also a visible hump in there around age 16-20, which I am told is due purely to teenage boys learning how to drive.

yes, but this is at the same time that boys also have very high libido, an intense desire to fit in with others, get attention from others, and ultimately consume as much pleasure as possible. A very toxic mixture of drives/desires intermingling.

Nick, Cory:

Imagine that - we are getting lectured by Tomas for not being serious enough!

I'll comment on the bad boy/nice guy division.

I think the bad boy tends to be more the hedonist who lives for the immediate. He almost always has substance abuse problems, he sometimes has a problem with authority and therefore has a problem holding down jobs. He tends to leech and destroy where-ever he goes, he also tends to be a poor father figure because he is never there, leaves, or sets a poor example. He is has a sort of quick vulgar wit that women enjoy because they observe him as someone who is powerful/superior. He puts down women, and usually is dominant enough to take what he wants. He cheats on his girlfriends in secret, and brags about it to other guys. On a subtle level, the bad boy finds banter games to keep women entertained and excited. He has an image of himself as an amazing lover, which is supported by his woman constantly. And by her constantly complimenting how great of a lover he is, this only pushes him to infidelity more. The bad boy usually attracts women who are very beautiful, but unintelligent or women with low self esteem.

Women who go towards the nice guy are usually smarter, they may have experimented with the bad boy, only to discover that the situation doesn't work for them. They are more motivated for long-term commitment and child rearing. And they realize that the nice guy is necessary for that. The nice guy is usually more meek, disciplined, better with money, and doesn't have the same degree of substance abuse as the bad boy. Or if he does, he is able to keep some control over it, and still be a decent provider. Excitement for the ncie guy is treating his women to vacations, dinners, flowers and the like. He tends to shower his women with sensual gifts. However, this behavior eventually makes the women feel like they deserve something more, and they maybe motivated to infidelity as well. The nice guy keep his woman interested through plans for house improvement, survival related activities, going to the gym and the like. The nice guy usually has a more difficult time with banter/humor than the bad boy, so he tries to compensate with all these other things because he feels a void in the relationship, and he knows she does too.

That is my interpretation. Of course there will be many subtle varieties of the bad boy and the nice guy, but I thought I'd throw out this type.

yeah, I pretty much agree with all that. But to elaborate a bit more:

I think, in society, there are generally two types of nice guys which are somewhat opposite. Here are the extremes:

The feminine (Beta) nice guy is often a push over, doesn't have much capacity for an interesting or powerful career, doesn't make much money. If he has a wife, she stays with him partly because she has no other options. He sometimes get suckered into money making schemes or fringe religions, he might subjugate himself to a cult, or to idols or rock stars, or might get really neurotic about un-soulful art, sensations, colors, poetry and feelings. He easily sinks into a routine, often involving TV, anything that's easy, really. He might become a neurotic collector of various objects, and he usually believes in God and afterlife, and when encountering arguments for atheism, he might get very despondent, frightened and saddened with such a reality, he also has difficulty understanding Atheist arguments. Not a good thinker. He's a nice guy, but has little masculinzation. With greater masculinization, he would eventually become a bad boy. And with a little more masculinization, he might become a nice guy again, but for totally different reasons. His wife is often unhappy, and might be a good mother in some instances, but isn't very careful or thoughtful, as she is often disappointed with life.

The masculine (Alpha) nice guy might have went through a phase as a teenager as a bad boy, but has had the masculinization to grow out of it and get serious about a respectable profession. He often ends up making good money doing something interesting and valuable to society, and usually has the humor and sufficient aggression to keep his wife satisfied. He is civilized, respectful and usually polite, but he doesn't need religion, or God, and is usually an Atheist. He might dabble in philosophy and other fields of science out of curiosity and also out of an attempt to form a coherent world view, but doesn't let it interfere too much with status, wife and family. His wife usually has principles, and makes a good mother.

And then there is the hyper masculine nice guy, but he exists outside of society, as he usually has sacrificed his power and status for increased consciousness. Calling him a "nice guy" is misleading because he speaks his mind, and his philosophy can be quite horrifying and amoral for most people in society. He tends to be regarded as a philosopher, sometimes "Sage." Not much appeal to women here.

I would also say there are two kinds of Bad boys:

There is the "beta" kind who quickly or gradually self destructs due to not having much intelligence. His interests are sports, action movies, cars, male fashion & jewelry, tattoos, hedonism, sex, crime. The more feminine he is, the more quickly he self destructs. In his more masculine form, he might be a Gangster, similar to what we see in Scorceses "Goodfellas". He might also be a self destructive cult leader, if the right conditions are met. His cults tend not to last very long, due to poor intelligence and emotional stability. This guy appeals to emotionally damaged and unintelligent women, albeit they are sometimes beautiful.

And then there is the "Alpha" bad boy, almost a gangster, but relatively sophisticated, he thrives in society as a cut-throat capitalist, subtly bending or side stepping rules rather than crudely breaking them. He has a bit more interest in/capacity for science only insofar as it gets him rewards, power and status. This man might eventually drive very flashy cars, wear expensive suits, watches, etc. He might also be a guru figure, forming an enduring cult (think Andrew Cohen) rather than a cult which easily implodes due to poor intelligence and emotional stability. This guy gets the hot chicks, but they don't have very good values, and make poor mothers.


Again, "the Sage" seems to embody both the Alpha bad boy and the Alpha nice guy, he has the notoriety of the former, but also the civility of the later, but also transcends them. He is masculinization taken to the extreme.

dejavu wrote:

Ryan: The bad boy usually attracts women who are very beautiful, but unintelligent or women with low self esteem.

Very beautiful but unintelligent. Never seen it myself.

Here's one.

jupiviv wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote: It's not that simple. I'm taking into account the respect certain parties have for science, and the efforts made at regulating for the sake things like environmental conservation, nuclear disarmament, health care, carbon emissions, education, etc.

A person with a rational mentality would have respect for those things. Since US liberals are not rational, I would say they're just doing what others are telling them, or holding those views to oppose another group, or achieve selfish aims.

Ok, well we don't have to plot just politicians, what about non-politicians who are interested in politics? In my experience, people on the left are much more open to science, diplomacy, improved policy and regulations. People on the right are more likely to have no understanding or respect for science, they are money hungry, creatively bankrupt idiots.

Nah, among authoritarians, there are loads of significant variation. Likewise with Anarchists.

An authoritarian wants to forcibly control people, and an anarchist wants to forcibly bring about a lack of control - so that is pretty identical.

There are lots of anarchists who are non violent, they don't believe in using force, except for self defense. You are getting carried away.

No. Like I said above - There are many breeds of socialists, and there are many different breeds of capitalists.

A capitalist wants to have more than others, and a socialists wants others to not have more than himself - the mentality is one of selfishness.

Ok, but just because they share that one thing in common, doesn't negate all the obvious differences between them.

Being as independent as possible is anarchism, and we can see that anarchism is not logical in relation to our current situation.

An enlightened person is wholly independent, and yet he would cooperate with others for rational objectives. On the other hand, both anarchism and authoritarianism would ultimately fail if they are not wise.

I honestly don't care what would or wouldn't happen. I am interested in looking at what is actually happening, and determining which demographics are exhibiting the greatest masculinization and feminization.

I think your "rational politics" sounds pretty pie in the sky and ignores our current human nature.

Common human nature is irrational and will always lead to trouble, so it needs to be ignored when formulating any system.

That's a very poor conclusion. Politics that ignores human nature gives you the horrors we've seen from extreme communism, and the degradation to environment from extreme liberty. Human irrationality has to be taken into account.

Cory Duchesne wrote:In my experience, people on the left are much more open to science, diplomacy, improved policy and regulations. People on the right are more likely to have no understanding or respect for science, they are money hungry, creatively bankrupts idiots.

Being "open" does not show improved masculinity - they are open to those things because they are following a certain fashion. Besides, Ron Paul is probably the best politician in the US, and he's right wing. Some other right wing people I know of are also more rational than the majority left wing people, especially libertarians. And the most rational people who are also into politics are centrists - they don't believe in any one side, and prefer to look at problems from an impartial perspective. I would also say that the left wing mentality is a far more hypocritical mentality than the right wing one. The difference between the two is kind of like the difference between the walrus and the carpenter in "Alice in Wonderland."

There are lots of anarchists who are non violent, they don't believe in using force, except for self defense. You are getting carried away.

How do they intend to bring about a state of anarchy? I could say that a lot of authoritarians are also non-violent, and don't believe in using force except when needed.

Ok, but just because they share that one thing in common, doesn't negate all the obvious differences between them.

The basic mentality is the same, and that is all I care about.

I am interested in looking at what is actually happening

What is actually happening is feminisation.

That's a very poor conclusion. Politics that ignores human nature gives you the horrors we've seen from extreme communism, and the degradation to environment from extreme liberty. Human irrationality has to be taken into account.

When I say that human irrationality should be eradicated, I am taking it into account. I'm just not formulating a system for irrational humans.

In my experience, people on the left are much more open to science, diplomacy, improved policy and regulations. People on the right are more likely to have no understanding or respect for science, they are money hungry, creatively bankrupts idiots.

Being "open" does not show improved masculinity

It usually does actually. If you are receptive to facts, and can see value in science, and if you have a satirical sense of humor, then you are indeed more masculine. If you are like republicans and run on gut feeling, emotion and myths, then you are more feminine.

- they are open to those things because they are following a certain fashion. Besides, Ron Paul is probably the best politician in the US, and he's right wing. Some other right wing people I know of are also more rational than the majority left wing people, especially libertarians.

You seem to have difficulty recognizing or respecting the fact that I have only set out to paint a general picture. Just because you can bring up "exceptions to the rule" or anomalies, doesn't negate the general idea I am trying to convey.

There are people vying for political power who are serious about allocating tax money for important things like stem cell research, genetic engineering, space exploration, and health care....if you think they are attaching themselves to these issues simply for fashion, then so be it, but it is certainly a more masculine fashion, is it not?

Consider leftist comedy shows like Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Cobert Report.

Do you see much intentional comedy coming from the right? Even IF these distinct behaviors of the left are simply fashion, can't you admit this fashion requires greater intellectual capacity?

Here is Bill Maher and Rachael Maddow having an amusing converation on the GOP miniverse

To paraphrase some of their points:

There has been a poll stating that 26% of republicans believed that the new health care reform would involve death panels. Among independents it was only 8%. And with democrats it was 5%.

Now hopefully you can at least agree with me that Fox News severely distorts the truth. That being said, consider that 59% of republicans watch Fox.

Also consider that 72% of Fox viewers believe the new health care will cover illegal immigrants. Among MSNBC viewers, it's only 41%.

69% believe the new health care will pay for abortions, while only 40% of msnbc viewers believe this.

75% of fox viewers believe the health care will stop care for the elderly, while only 30% of msnbc viewers believe this.

The point is, Republicans generally run on a whole different set of facts (facts which are often, not facts). The parties aren't always arguing the meaning of the same facts. Rather, one party is asserting certain facts exists, which actually don't. And it's usually the republicans who are making shit up. This is not insignificant. This isn't just about fashion, and if it you want to call it fashion, then you are going to have to take into account the way these opposing fashions differ.

Now, just consider some of the republican icons of the past decades. Nixon, Dan Quayle, George Bush, Sarah Palin..

Ronald Regan once tried to argue that trees cause pollution and that Ketchup is a vegetable.

I'm not saying democrats are flawless. Politics as an endeavor is hugely flawed, and I was never arguing it wasn't.

There are lots of anarchists who are non violent, they don't believe in using force, except for self defense. You are getting

carried away.

How do they intend to bring about a state of anarchy?

Their intentions usually involve trying to ever-refine their rhetoric in order to convince people using non violent means. That's why the world is dominated by authoritarianism, with hardly any anarchy. Anarchists don't believe in centralization, they usually eschew physical violence, and so they have no dominance.

After taking an honest look at the world, are you starting to see a significant difference between anarchy and authoritarianism?

I could say that a lot of authoritarians are also non-violent, and don't believe in using force except when needed.

You're only proving my point. There is significant variation between groups, and among members of a group. It's as if you are trying cast them as all as the same, whereas I see differences worth pointing out. Sometimes Authoritarianism is extreme, other times its very mild. Sometimes the centralized control has a great respect for science, progress and justice. Other times it shields itself from too much truth and neglects or abuses the weak.

The differences are not something you should ignore. Part of being conscious is about processing information, not just dwelling in simplistic logical deductions, as that's too easy.

Ok, but just because they share that one thing in common, doesn't negate all the obvious differences between them.

The basic mentality is the same, and that is all I care about.

And thus you come across as a poor thinker.

I am interested in looking at what is actually happening

What is actually happening is feminisation.

And obviously some demographics of society are going to be more feminine/masculine than others. Compare politics to religion for instance, and it's obvious that politics is more masculine. Then compare politics to science, and I think it's clear that science is more masculine.

When I say that human irrationality should be eradicated, I am taking it into account. I'm just not formulating a system for irrational humans.

You said "common human nature is irrational and will always lead to trouble, so [human nature] needs to be ignored when formulating any system."

You have blundered, it's plain as day. Human nature should not be ignored when formulating a system.

Cory Duchesne wrote:It usually does actually. If you are receptive to facts, and can see value in science, and if you have a satirical sense of humor, then you are indeed more masculine. If you are like republicans and run on gut feeling, emotion and myths, then you are more feminine.

I haven't seen enough evidence of what you are saying. At best, leftists are receptive to some facts, and blind to others. It's more or less the same with republicans. Science is not masculine in itself, and seeing value in science is not the same as seeing value in rationality. It's the way that science is used that denotes masculinity/femininity, and all the leftists I know do not value science for a conscious, rational purpose.

Regarding openness - I would say that there too you would have to make a division between conscious and unconscious openness. A person can be open and receptive to facts simply because the group that they belong to are open to them - this is feminine.

You seem to have difficulty recognizing or respecting the fact that I have only set out to paint a general picture.

I do recognise it, but your general picture seems untrue to me. It can't be applied in the way you are trying to.

There are people vying for political power who are serious about allocating tax money for important things like stem cell research, genetic engineering, space exploration, and health care....if you think they are attaching themselves to these issues simply for fashion, then so be it, but it is certainly a more masculine fashion, is it not?

It is masculine to the degree that it is conscious.

Do you see much intentional comedy coming from the right? Even IF these distinct behaviors of the left are simply fashion, can't you admit this fashion requires greater intellectual capacity?

Their comedy seems to me to be a form of mockery, which is feminine. It's mimicking someone as a gesture of violence(satire/mockery) or merging(wit/harmless fun/"romantic comedy"). Comedy is basically the same as what you see monkeys doing when they make faces at you, or parrots talking.

Anyways, their comedy basically involves mocking another group. It's not the kind of comedy I would call "intellectual".

Now hopefully you can at least agree with me that Fox News severely distorts the truth.

As does the entire media basically. :-) Different camps just distort different types of truth.

Their intentions usually involve trying to ever-refine their rhetoric in order to convince people using non violent means. That's why the world is dominated by authoritarianism, with hardly any anarchy. Anarchists don't believe in centralization, they usually eschew physical violence, and so they have no dominance.

My experience of anarchists says that they want to destroy the "center"(which is quite natural, since they want decentralisation), which would definitely involve violence.

The differences are not something you should ignore. Part of being conscious is about processing information, not just dwelling in simplistic logical deductions, as that's too easy.

I agree that there are differences, but on a deeper level, these different ideologies are really the same, as they are all irrational. As my concern is rationality, and not helping the poor, I concentrate on what I'm concerned about.

And obviously some demographics of society are going to be more feminine/masculine than others. Compare politics to religion for instance, and it's obvious that politics is more masculine. Then compare politics to science, and I think it's clear that science is more masculine.

Yes, but it has to be seen how much more masculine each of those are than the other. It is perfectly possible to be irrational and a good scientist, although you'd probably not be able to make any really significant breakthroughs.

You said "common human nature is irrational and will always lead to trouble, so [ common human nature] needs to be ignored when formulating any system."

That's actually what I said. You can't formulate a rational system for irrational beings.

jupiviv wrote:That's actually what I said. You can't formulate a rational system for irrational beings.

Systems are designed to produce a desired outcome by causing the components within the system to function a certain way. People do this all the time with varying degrees of success, and some times the components within the system are people. The "formulated system" that is Democracy can be considered a rational system in which irrational people operate. Not to mention it is the most successful system ever devised when it comes to providing opportunity, justice, and fairness for the most people.

Nick Treklis wrote:

jupiviv wrote:That's actually what I said. You can't formulate a rational system for irrational beings.

Systems are designed to produce a desired outcome by causing the components within the system to function a certain way. People do this all the time with varying degrees of success, and some times the components within the system are people. The "formulated system" that is Democracy can be considered a rational system in which irrational people operate. Not to mention it is the most successful system ever devised when it comes to providing opportunity, justice, and fairness for the most people.

Democracy has the potential to be a rational system(like all systems), but it is not rational as it exists in the world, so it is not successful at all as far as I am concerned.

jupiviv wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:It usually does actually. If you are receptive to facts, and can see value in science, and if you have a satirical sense of humor, then you are indeed more masculine. If you are like republicans and run on gut feeling, emotion and myths, then you are more feminine.

I haven't seen enough evidence of what you are saying.

That's because you aren't conscious enough to notice the distinctions or their significance.

At best, leftists are receptive to some facts, and blind to others.

Obviously there is going to be degrees of unconsciousness in the left, but it's plain as day that most of the hysteria and myth making in American culture comes from the republican side. It's either you see it or you don't, I am definitely not going to argue with you on this much longer.

It's more or less the same with republicans. Science is not masculine in itself,

Man, would you please get off your damn high horse? lol Nobody is saying science is purely masculine in itself, and most importantly, nobody is saying anything has to be ABSOLUTELY masculine in order to be noteworthy. Masculinity, consciousness, rationality, however you want to frame it, exists in degrees.

You're like: "yeah, but it's not absolutely masculine"

And I'm like: "No shit, that's not even what I'm arguing, I'm just saying that the left side is generally exhibiting a greater degree of consciousness than the right side"

And you're like: "yeah, but the left side is not absolutely masculine"

And I'm like: "NO SHIT - that's not what I'm even arguing"

and seeing value in science is not the same as seeing value in rationality.

It's a step in the right direction, though.

It's the way that science is used that denotes masculinity/femininity, and all the leftists I know do not value science for a conscious, rational purpose.

So you are criticizing the left for not manifesting masculinity in the extremes you value. So what? You are debating with your own shadow. You don't make an effort to understand the person you're talking to, it's as if you are autistic or something.

Regarding openness - I would say that there too you would have to make a division between conscious and unconscious openness. A person can be open and receptive to facts simply because the group that they belong to are open to them - this is feminine.

Is it as feminine as the person who is open minded ONLY to myths that send him into hysteria?

I'm actually already pretty sure what you're going to say to this, and if you say what I think you're going to say, then I won't be replying.

Do you see much intentional comedy coming from the right? Even IF these distinct behaviors of the left are simply fashion, can't you admit this fashion requires greater intellectual capacity?

Their comedy seems to me to be a form of mockery, which is feminine.

Seems to be, is the key phrase. You lack the consciousness to notice anything except for the mockery (the mockery aspects are the easiest to discern, and that's all you can discern).

Now hopefully you can at least agree with me that Fox News severely distorts the truth.

As does the entire media basically. :-) Different camps just distort different types of truth.

You once again demonstrate your disability when it comes to noticing degrees of difference. Fox is obviously the worst of the bunch. But instead of seeing things in terms of degrees, you just dismiss them all as one thing, and this relinquishes you of the burden of paying attention to sensory stimuli in an intelligent manner.

My experience of anarchists says that they want to destroy the "center"(which is quite natural, since they want decentralisation), which would definitely involve violence.

Yeah, your experience being the key phrase. I happen to frequent a couple Anarchist discussion forums, and I have not yet met one anarchist who is in favor of physical violence. They believe that if only Anarchism was explained better, more blogs, more forums, more books, more activism, more promotion, then people would finally realize the truth of anarchism.

You are like some android locked into this limited program, going round in circles.

The differences are not something you should ignore. Part of being conscious is about processing information, not just dwelling in simplistic logical deductions, as that's too easy.

I agree that there are differences, but on a deeper level, these different ideologies are really the same, as they are all irrational. As my concern is rationality, and not helping the poor, I concentrate on what I'm concerned about.

You make the mistake of assuming your deeper reality (where all these ideologies are the same) should be valued at the expense of seeing the obvious reality of how they are significantly different. This is not true, if you want rationality to flourish, some systems are better than others.

That's actually what I said. You can't formulate a rational system for irrational beings.

All political systems will be imperfect when the populace is partly irrational, but you CAN put in a system that works better than other systems at raising the consciousness of the people.

jupiviv wrote:Democracy has the potential to be a rational system(like all systems), but it is not rational as it exists in the world, so it is not successful at all as far as I am concerned.

Democracy is in fact a rational system precisely because it was designed to best manage irrationality in people, and it does a better job of this than anything else I can think of. So yes you can formulate a rational system for irrational beings, it's done all the time. Also, what do you mean by "it's not rational because it exists in the world"? Where else could it exist?

Cory Duchesne wrote:That's because you aren't conscious enough to notice the distinctions or their significance.

No, I'm seeing the general picture, and not the particulars. The general picture of the left is not like what you paint. Exceptions are always possible, and there may be people in the left who are more masculine than the rest, but you are holding the characteristics of those exceptions as the general rule.

Obviously there is going to be degrees of unconsciousness in the left, but it's plain as day that most of the hysteria and myth making in American culture comes from the republican side. It's either you see it or you don't, I am definitely not going to argue with you on this much longer.

Like I said, the different camps have different kinds of hysteria and myth making. Take the hysteria over saving the environment for example, which exists in the left, or affirmative action, or the popularity of Obama. If you think that there is a significant difference between the US left and the right when it comes to being masculine, or speaking the truth, then you are deluded. Most women appear to be leftists in the US - that also does not point to masculinity as a general characteristic.

Nobody is saying science is purely masculine in itself

Science is not at all masculine in itself - that is what I am saying. And there is a level over which a person can be considered "masculine"(conscious/genius). There are of course differences in the level of masculinity in feminine persons, and this masculinity may of course fluctuate, but they are still feminine nevertheless.

So you are criticizing the left for not manifesting masculinity in the extremes you value.

A person can value science because it makes them happy, or because others are valuing it, and this seems to be the norm when it comes to people valuing science. So these people are not manifesting masculinity *at all* when it comes to valuing science. They may, however, manifest masculinity in other areas.

Is it as feminine as the person who is open minded ONLY to myths that send him into hysteria?

I think we should clarify the meaning of "open minded." Normally, I find that people are "open minded" simply because they are not enough masculine to be close minded. I am close minded, for example, because I reject a number of ideologies, religions, etc. as I perceive them as irrational. In fact, I reject pretty much everything that ordinary people value. However, I am "open minded" to any rational ideology or statement. And it could be said that people who are open minded are really close minded, since they probably won't accept/like close-mindedness. So it is pretty impossible to be open minded, unless one is mindless.

Seems to be, is the key phrase. You lack the consciousness to notice anything except for the mockery (the mockery aspects are the easiest to discern, and that's all you can discern).

There is certainly more to it than the mockery, but that doesn't make it masculine.

You once again demonstrate your disability when it comes to noticing degrees of difference.

Again, I do notice the differences in the media, but don't consider any of them to be significant indicators of the masculinity of one group over another.

I happen to frequent a couple Anarchist discussion forums, and I have not yet met one anarchist who is in favor of physical violence.

That's good, but destruction is still required, and as this destruction would be for irrational purposes, it would be violence.

You make the mistake of assuming your deeper reality (where all these ideologies are the same) should be valued at the expense of seeing the obvious reality of how they are significantly different. This is not true, if you want rationality to flourish, some systems are better than others.

If we are to be rational, then rationality should be valued at the expense of all that is irrational. And as I said, any system would be rational if it is composed of rational beings. Society as it appears to me is definitely not composed of rational beings in the majority, or even the minority. There is a severe lack of them.

PS - I found these articles. These appear to counter what you have said about Fox:

http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_ ... s-mos.html

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/444.pdf

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes ... bama-s-way

BTW, I am a 19 year old from India, so I don't know much about US politics :-). All I'm relying on is my reasoning, and the little that I do know about it.

Nick Treklis wrote:Democracy is in fact a rational system precisely because it was designed to best manage irrationality in people

If I get a choice between my fate being decided by a large number of irrational people, a small number of irrational people and a single irrational man....I wouldn't make a choice, because the results would be the same. The majority of people are irrational, so democracy does not manage irrationality any better than any other irrational system. And moreover, once you start to look at all the democracies in the world, you know they aren't democracies at all.

Also, what do you mean by "it's not rational because it exists in the world"? Where else could it exist?

I meant "the *way* it exists in the world," i.e, it exists as an irrational system.

jupiviv wrote:If I get a choice between my fate being decided by a large number of irrational people, a small number of irrational people and a single irrational man....I wouldn't make a choice, because the results would be the same.

You're really not thinking this through enough. A democratic government to any extent, has proved itself through out history to be better than a dictatorship when it comes to helping provide people a higher standard of living.

jupiviv wrote:The majority of people are irrational, so democracy does not manage irrationality any better than any other irrational system. And moreover, once you start to look at all the democracies in the world, you know they aren't democracies at all.

We're not dealing with absolutes here. This is an empirical matter, which requires rational analysis of empirical data, and with all your talk about irrationality, that is exactly what you are being when you state that democracy does not manage the irrationalities of people better than other systems.

jupiviv wrote:I meant "the *way* it exists in the world," i.e, it exists as an irrational system.

If we say that to whatever extent a system reduces irrationality is the extent to which it is rational system, then we can say that democracy is more rational than a dictatorship. If you know anything about history, or simply compare the different forms of government which are currently operating in the world, you will find that countries with democracies general provide their people with a higher standard of living than those that don't have a democracy. Again, we're not dealing with absolutes here, so it's completely irrational to write of all systems as equally irrational when rational analysis of the data shows just the opposite.

Nick Treklis wrote:A democratic government to any extent, has proved itself through out history to be better than a dictatorship when it comes to helping provide people a higher standard of living.

I'm not concerned about a higher standard of living. And even on that point, I am doubtful about the extent of democracy's role. I would say that high the living standard of the west must be attributed to a lot of other factors.

We're not dealing with absolutes here. This is an empirical matter, which requires rational analysis of empirical data, and with all your talk about irrationality, that is exactly what you are being when you state that democracy does not manage the irrationalities of people better than other systems.

I think we can discuss this better if you give some examples of how you think democracy manages irrationalities better.

If we say that to whatever extent a system reduces irrationality is the extent to which it is rational system, then we can say that democracy is more rational than a dictatorship.

I would say that it depends. For example, a rational dictator ruling over irrational people is more rational than an irrational majority ruling over a rational minority(in a democracy).

If you know anything about history, or simply compare the different forms of government which are currently operating in the world, you will find that countries with democracies general provide their people with a higher standard of living than those that don't have a democracy.

I don't think the reason for a higher living standard is democracy. Plus, the living standard has consistently decreased in the world's largest democracy - India - since its independence.

jupiviv wrote:I'm not concerned about a higher standard of living. And even on that point, I am doubtful about the extent of democracy's role. I would say that high the living standard of the west must be attributed to a lot of other factors.

Nobody is asking you if you're concerned with a higher standard of living.

jupiviv wrote:I think we can discuss this better if you give some examples of how you think democracy manages irrationalities better.

Are you telling me you can't figure out on your own why countries with power concentrated in the hands of a few don't function as well countries where power is spread around via democracy?

Let me put it this way. Say you are locked in a room for an indefinite amount of time with a limited amount of food and water with 9 other people. Would you rather the rules of the room, and thus the distribution of food and water, be decided by one random person, or would you rather everyone have an equal say? Since I know you're probably going to bring this up, I'll mention that everyone is equally rational or irrational; however you want to put it.

jupiviv wrote:I would say that it depends. For example, a rational dictator ruling over irrational people is more rational than an irrational majority ruling over a rational minority(in a minority).

Nobody's talking about the rationality of the rulers and the ruled. Stop making irrelevant statements and focus on what I actually mean. We're talking about how different systems of government do in fact make a big difference in people's lives, and can even cause people to become more rational or irrational.

jupiviv wrote:I don't think the reason for a higher living standard is democracy.

You would have a hard time arguing otherwise.

jupiviv wrote:Plus, the living standard has consistently decreased in the world's largest democracy - India, since its independence.

I have a hunch that might be due to a weakening democracy.

Cory,

Related to your alpha/beta analysis:

One should also expect Alpha males to have a better hormonal balance than betas. Moreover, they should exhibit faster metabolisms, experience greater athletic ability, and be in overall better health.

When a male is feminized as a beta, one should expect that he exhibits some of the same health baggage as females. IE: slower metabolisms, hormonal imbalances, higher instances of disease, and so on.

That is just my guess. what do you think?

Ryan Rudolph wrote: what do you think?

Yeah, sounds about right.

Cory,

what is noticed is that many beta males speak as if they are alpha males with others when there is no sort of risk or threat, but when put in actual situations where they are required to behave like alpha males, they show their beta colors.

[quote="Cory Duchesne"]aha!

Rush and Rosie (whom I've both met at least a couple times) are masculine thinkers. Both Alpha's. And high intelligence.

Tomas, how the heck do you meet so many celebrities?

Nick Treklis wrote:Nobody is asking you if you're concerned with a higher standard of living.

I just didn't see the connection between rationality and a higher standard of living, and I thought you were trying to make some sort of a connection between them.

Are you telling me you can't figure out on your own why countries with power concentrated in the hands of a few don't function as well countries where power is spread around via democracy?

I can figure it out, but that would only be in a country where 50%+ of the population is rational, and I'm not aware of such a country.

Let me put it this way. Say you are locked in a room for an indefinite amount of time with a limited amount of food and water with 9 other people. Would you rather the rules of the room, and thus the distribution of food and water, be decided by one random person, or would you rather everyone have an equal say? Since I know you're probably going to bring this up, I'll mention that everyone is equally rational or irrational; however you want to put it.

If everybody is irrational, each of them would naturally want more food for themselves.

We're talking about how different systems of government do in fact make a big difference in people's lives, and can even cause people to become more rational or irrational.

When it comes to becoming more rational or irrational, they don't make any difference whatsoever. The formation of rationality itself can't depend too much on any external factor(i.e, outside independent thought), otherwise it will never develop.

I don't think the reason for a higher living standard is democracy.

You would have a hard time arguing otherwise.

Not at all. For one thing, the imperialism of the west in earlier ages is a direct cause for its wealth now.

I have a hunch that might be due to a weakening democracy.

No, the democracy of India has definitely become stronger and stronger with the years.

jupiviv wrote:I just didn't see the connection between rationality and a higher standard of living, and I thought you were trying to make some sort of a connection between them.

I am making a connection between them. I'm just letting you know that whether you value a higher standard of living or not has nothing to do with our discussion.

jupiviv wrote:I can figure it out, but that would only be in a country where 50%+ of the population is rational, and I'm not aware of such a country.

You're wrong.

jupiviv wrote:

Let me put it this way. Say you are locked in a room for an indefinite amount of time with a limited amount of food and water with 9 other people. Would you rather the rules of the room, and thus the distribution of food and water, be decided by one random person, or would you rather everyone have an equal say? Since I know you're probably going to bring this up, I'll mention that everyone is equally rational or irrational; however you want to put it.

If everybody is irrational, each of them would naturally want more food for themselves.

You didn't answer the question. Please try again.

jupiviv wrote:

We're talking about how different systems of government do in fact make a big difference in people's lives, and can even cause people to become more rational or irrational.

When it comes to becoming more rational or irrational, they don't make any difference whatsoever. The formation of rationality itself can't depend too much on any external factor(i.e, outside independent thought), otherwise it will never develop.

Oh really? What you're implying then is that if an asteroid came and destroyed all life on Earth, rationality can still magically exist without anyone to be conscious of it? It's like saying if an enlightened individual were shot he'd still be enlightened. There is no separation between your concepts of rationality, or anything else for that matter, and "external factors". In fact they are intricately tied together.

jupiviv wrote:

I don't think the reason for a higher living standard is democracy.

You would have a hard time arguing otherwise.

Not at all. For one thing, the imperialism of the west in earlier ages is a direct cause for its wealth now.

I seen this statement coming a mile away. First off, I'm not talking about an indiscriminate increase in "wealth", secondly, nobody said in any way, shape, or form that democracy is the only way to increase "wealth". Stealing comes to mind. So again, you are ignoring what's actually being discussed here, thus avoiding responsibility for just about everything you say.

jupiviv wrote:

I have a hunch that might be due to a weakening democracy.

No, the democracy of India has definitely become stronger and stronger with the years.

I'd be interested in knowing what you mean by stronger.