3 of 3
3
I have a theory and I’m pretty sure it’s accurate…
Posted: 03 February 2012 08:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2817
Joined  2005-04-29
0username0 - 03 February 2012 06:54 PM

. . .  I think early education on this stuff can help a lot. . . .

That’s a fine goal to shoot for, but unless you have a specific plan in mind that would allow the kind of education you’re talking about, it will never happen. Lots and lots of problems are solvable through early education. My own pet peeve is that at least in the U.S., children are taught in school to be production workers and easily-swayed consumers rather than skeptical thinkers and wise purchasers. Through changes in education, our children might at least partially become able to see through all the deception aimed at us via products and their advertisers, including politicians. But K-12 education as I envision it on a large scale—parallel to what’s done in Waldorf and other progressive schools—is not going to happen within my lifetime, if it ever does.


Do you have anything specific in mind that will move the world to see the value of your goal? I offered one possibility, which utilizes the courts but it would be expensive and very well might not work at all. It would probably be a waste of money, but at least it’s something specific. Saying that early education will accomplish your goal is not specific or at all realistic.

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 February 2012 08:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23
nonverbal - 03 February 2012 08:18 PM
0username0 - 03 February 2012 06:54 PM

. . .  I think early education on this stuff can help a lot. . . .

That’s a fine goal to shoot for, but unless you have a specific plan in mind that would allow the kind of education you’re talking about, it will never happen. Lots and lots of problems are solvable through early education. My own pet peeve is that at least in the U.S., children are taught in school to be production workers and easily-swayed consumers rather than skeptical thinkers and wise purchasers. Through changes in education, our children might at least partially become able to see through all the deception aimed at us via products and their advertisers, including politicians. But K-12 education as I envision it on a large scale—parallel to what’s done in Waldorf and other progressive schools—is not going to happen within my lifetime, if it ever does.


Do you have anything specific in mind that will move the world to see the value of your goal? I offered one possibility, which utilizes the courts but it would be expensive and very well might not work at all. It would probably be a waste of money, but at least it’s something specific. Saying that early education will accomplish your goal is not specific or at all realistic.

I think early education is quite specific.  To get more specific you can gather a group of the best ethicists, psychologigists and cognitive scientists in the world to construct a text book that is used for early education and make ethics as mandatory as learning language.  We’re constantly evolving our social systems, the problem is if we can’t address the root causes of our problems we’re always going to be playing catch-up.  If we can at least provide good ethical education to people they will make better decisions and this social evolution will occur in a more sensible way.

[ Edited: 04 February 2012 09:41 AM by 0username0]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 February 2012 09:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2817
Joined  2005-04-29
0username0 - 04 February 2012 08:44 AM

I think early education is quite specific. To get more specific you can gather a group of the best ethicists, psychologigists and cognitive scientists in the world to construct a text book that is used for early education and make ethics as mandatory as learning language.  We’re constantly evolving our social systems, the problem is if we can’t address the root causes of our problems we’re always going to be playing catch-up.  If we can at least provide good ethical education to people they will make better decisions and this social evolution will occur in a more sensible way.

How do you accomplish such a thing? Talk is cheap.

[ Edited: 04 February 2012 09:13 PM by nv]
 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 February 2012 08:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23
nonverbal - 04 February 2012 09:09 PM
0username0 - 04 February 2012 08:44 AM

I think early education is quite specific. To get more specific you can gather a group of the best ethicists, psychologigists and cognitive scientists in the world to construct a text book that is used for early education and make ethics as mandatory as learning language.  We’re constantly evolving our social systems, the problem is if we can’t address the root causes of our problems we’re always going to be playing catch-up.  If we can at least provide good ethical education to people they will make better decisions and this social evolution will occur in a more sensible way.

How do you accomplish such a thing? Talk is cheap.

Well, I’m pretty poor.  I’ve been trying to get people to help me fund a 5013c that’s just on the issue of peace and sexuality called “Sex for Peace” it hasn’t gone anywhere.  I suppose it’s just a matter of contacting people and seeing if they see what you see and have similar passion.  The biggest hurdle I’m going to encounter is that some organizations aren’t going to want to be seen a controversial, and I’m aware that the ideas about the aggregate sexual proclivities of women is pretty controversial, you can’t get laid supporting a cause like this, memetics of sexual selection and all.  Since it is an act of aggression to suppress a movement that defines and tries to reduce aggression the sexual selection value is higher for rejecting it.  I’m aware of the hurdles.  But I’ll try anyways.  This is to say, that if this really doesn’t get off the ground it would be the general levels of aggression that women display in looking for aggression from males so they can sexually select them.  Very primate of us.  But it’s the truth.  Of course not all men and women are like this, but as an aggregate this is what I’m up against.  I suppose today is gladiator day with the super bowl, just reminds me how truly violent of a culture we are.  Funny that women often complain about their men watching this stuff, when it increases their odds of being sexually selected to do it.  Are you all awake yet?  Life is about reducing aggression, which is what kindness is, and this is what reduces suffering.  People wonder why we can’t solve our environmental problems, the truth of it is, it’s aggressive to transgress against the environment, and displays of aggression have a very high sexual selection value, it also effects our ability to find solutions to energy consumption, as it as a reward system effects the innovative process in the species.

[ Edited: 05 February 2012 01:45 PM by 0username0]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 February 2012 12:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23

I suppose what I’m talking about above is what people have come to call, “The game”.  I hate players and I hate the game.  If the game is to reduce aggression, I love players and I love the game.  They say all is fair in love and war, if this were true, those who had the least aggression would be the most sexually attractive and selected and there’d be no war.  If I was a believer in the afterlife or something of a continuity of our identity after this life, I’d hope it’s much more ethical than what we experience here, because if this is any indication, the system is actually set up to punish people who are less aggressive than those who aren’t, and the root of this expression comes about in how sexual selection occurs for the most part.  Nice males are severely punished in this world system that we have, economically and sexually and the two are very much intertwined with each other.  What we prop up with our sexual selections will be what we create culturally, the great national debt, the bailouts, unwise war decisions, economic predation, the fact that the headline of a superbowl was about a wardrobe malfunction rather than the barbarity of football.  It all comes down to how we sexually select each other.  It’s even why women are generally paid less for doing the same work as a man and get promoted less often than their male counterparts, it’s what they’re sexually selecting, if I’m a male and I keep bringing males higher up into the hierarchy than women I’m more likely to be sexually selected by more women for my act of aggression than if I promote people as people simply based on their skill, completely aside form the issue of prostitution.  When people wise up to this, I think they’ll see what is currently called the game for the hopeless endeavor it truly is.

[ Edited: 06 February 2012 02:00 PM by 0username0]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 February 2012 08:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2817
Joined  2005-04-29

Sounds fine to me, username. Meanwhile, I’d recommend you research primary (genetic) v. secondary (environmental) sexual attraction cues and how they interact with people’s intimacy needs. Not much has been written about these matters, unfortunately.

 

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 February 2012 08:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23

I’ve received rejection letters or silence from dozens of charitable trusts that write back and say that they don’t support causes like this.  The irony is they’re doing this because it’s a movement that actually reduces aggression and actually gets to the root of the problems that they’re trying to solve.  It’s almost like the species is an aggression machine, I can just see women scoffing and men rejecting it so they can get laid, the aggregate aggression in the species.  Kind of like, “Wow, I have an opportunity to present something that reduces aggression in the species to a male so he can reject it and show his aggression”, or for a male, “Wow, what an opportunity to show my aggression by rejecting this stuff that would clearly reduce aggression in the species.”  I think people can sense true things that actually work and reduce aggression and it gives them wonderful opportunities to do this chest pounding ritual that they so like to see happen between each other.  I’m starting to think that no charitable trust will help me in this endeavor, and it’s tragic because without this type of movement, everything else they’re spending money on won’t ultimately work towards the true ends they want to see in the long term.  It’s not money wasted per se, because it will help people, it’s just money vastly underutilized and assures that there’ll always be preventable problems that we keep throwing money at, it’s waste to not support this movement.  I don’t even have the capital to start the not-for-profit.  It boggles the mind.  That people are so mechanically inclined to reject something that so clearly reduces aggression because of their mating ritual and the cognition that springs from it.

[ Edited: 08 February 2012 08:49 AM by 0username0]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 February 2012 08:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23

I guess as a summary if you’re not reading the whole thread:

The theory is simple. The leading cause of war, poverty, environmental degradation etc.. is the HOW.  HOW we sexually select each other.  Sexual selection is a behavioral reward system and it effects biological evolution, when the decisions are reproductive, it effects families as well.  The best rule people could have ever come up with that falls in the category of “That which elicits the most joy and least suffering for all beings.” is “Don’t have sex with mean people.”.  This also means that the religions and cultures were NOT divinely inspired, since there is no religion on earth that has this rule.


Sexually selecting aggression over non-aggression is maladaptive, it has never been evolutionarily useful.  Aggression is defined as a maladaptive use of energy that increases overall suffering.  I believe early education on this topic will help people make better sexual selection decisions.


It is the case that women choose more aggressive behaviors in men than men do in women, which is why men are repressing of women.  Don’t let this fool you though, the act of choosing a more aggressive male over a less aggressive male is itself an act of aggression, in total, I would estimate that women are actually more aggressive than men are because of this phenomenon.  I do not believe this overwhelming aggression that comes from women should be considered a mitigating factor when considering severe crimes that men commit.


These are aggregate figures for the species.  Not everyone is attracted to aggression, not everyone sexually selects aggressive people.


It is an act of aggression to suppress a movement that defines and reduces aggression, and because aggression is chosen so much more often over non-aggression sexually we can understand why movements that try to reduce aggression receive so little traction.  It is the mating ritual of the species to reject such movements.


That’s the summary.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2012 04:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23

I was just talking with a woman who described something from the female point of view.  She said that she’s experienced peer pressure from women pressuring other women to have sex with more aggressive males in order to fit in, not only are women more attracted to aggression in males, apparently, they can pressure each other into assuring that these counts for behavioral re-enforcement are as high as they actually get.  She was also commenting on times when she sets boundaries with people about their aggressive attitudes by pointing out the aggression that people tend to get more aggressive.  My theory is that this is because of our mating ritual that people do this.  Males do it because of the statistical frequency of what will get them laid, and I actually haven’t figured out why women do it since they tend to get the brunt of the abuse from doing this.  The people who have the easiest lives in our system are aggressive males, and this is primarily because of how women sexually select.  It speaks very poorly of our global culture.  I truly believe that if we educate people on this stuff that they will make more informed and better decisions.


Edit: I used the phrase “attracted to aggression”, when what I meant to suggest is more along the lines of what gets sexually selected, as I’ve come to understand that women often sleep with men who they don’t want to sleep with and don’t even enjoy it through some sort of intimidation that aggression bestows upon the situation.  So I would simply suggest that aggression gets more sexually selected than kindness or a lack of aggression, I mean to refer to the external objective sense of sexual selection rather than the internal state of attraction, which is very personal and not indicative of all sexual selections.


I would add that when you think of the people who we rumor to have the most sexual selections they tend to be musicians who have aggressive lyrics and sports players who engage in competitions, even spectators of competitions will have a higher sexual selection value from women than non-spectators.  An interesting way to detect aggression is to see whether someone just wants to shoot baskets or whether they want to play a game like horse, whether they’re interested in drawing tiles for scrabble and just laying words down or whether they’re interested in keeping a score.  What I find interesting about women is that they tend to not be as aggressive as men on these metrics, but they overwhelmingly sexually select these traits in men.  This is where the aggression of women really shows itself in the species, and it is a truly profound aggression, as I said earlier, it is so serious as to be as serious as something akin to rape itself.

[ Edited: 11 February 2012 09:26 AM by 0username0]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2012 09:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23

I’m literally banging my head against the keyboard.  My sex for peace thing isn’t going anywhere.  Can’t people understand that this is actually what’s happening.  That the reason we have so much war, so much poverty and so much environmental degradation is that it’s our mating ritual.  People want the answer.  THIS IS IT!!!!  Most of the aggression in the species comes from the aggregate heterosexual mating ritual since most people are heterosexual - and war, poverty and environmental degradation are aggression.  Most, not all heterosexuals, have a very simple mating ritual.  The male pounds his chest, to stand for aggression, and when the female observes this she sexually selects him, when she doesn’t observe this, she doesn’t sexually select him.  This is why we have so much war, poverty and environmental degradation.


This is why we’re in such a crappy situation with the species.  It’s our mating ritual that’s causing the problem!!!!!!!!  I don’t understand why people don’t just say, crap, this is true, let’s try to educate people on this when they’re younger and see if it actually helps.  We’ll teach people what aggression is and teach them when non-aggression is and teach them to sexually select non-aggression over aggression.  Our mating ritual is effecting the gas milage of our cars, it’s all of it, all the aggression.  I’m giving you the actual answer to this problem.  It’s like screaming and no sound comes out.  What is this planet!!!????  You’ll donate billions of dollars to environmental clean up but none to the education that will stop the problem.  What’s wrong with people!!!??  Oh, that’s right, it’s part of the mating ritual to reject things that actually work.  Where am I and who are all these people!!!???


I ran every variable I could on this problem, and the same answer keeps coming up, it’s our mating ritual, it’s our mating ritual, it’s our mating ritual.  Until people get this through their heads they are not going to be able to effect our global problems on a global scale in a way that meaningfully addresses them.  It’s the aggregate mating ritual of the species that is causing all of these problems, simple, simple, simple.  People are also going to have to acknowledge that biological evolution is true when they look at the species sexual selection process and the distribution of aggression in the species, and they are also going to have to realize that religion as we have known it has not been inspired to reduce the greatest amount of suffering in the species, since not a single religion on earth has the rule “Don’t have sex with mean people”.  They are going to have to seriously rethink what they believe about life.  If there is a continuity of consciousness after we die, it suggests that we were incarnated in a planet that did not have optimal emergent conditions to reduce the most suffering in the species (we had bad karma to incarnate here), and it’s possible Buddhism may or may not be the accurate idea.  The rest of the religions make no sense given that none of them had the rule do not have sex with mean people, since clearly an omniscient God interested in reducing the most suffering would be very interested in telling people, “Hey, commandment 1"Do that which elicits the most joy and least suffering for all beings” and commandment 2, “Don’t have sex with mean people”.  Our history is not divinely inspired and I am not taking divine credit for figuring this out, so the buck stops, religion as many people have formulated it is a sham, and they need to severely re-evaluate what they believe.

[ Edited: 17 February 2012 09:50 AM by 0username0]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 February 2012 08:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23

http://www.project-reason.org/forum/viewthread/23743/

If you’re interested in a different group of people approaching this discussion with me, I have it going at Sam Harris’ other site.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2012 04:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22

0username0, yes i think sex, or rather procreation, plays a large role in our behaviour. I think what you are ultimately getting at (while maybe not realising it), is the entire mechanism of “survival of the fittest” as identified by Darwin, of which procreation is a part. Two people are starving. There is only one apple left. Sharing it doesnt give enough nutrients to survive. The two people must fight over the apple and the winner survives.


This is the way nature works, war is inherent to it. Many people talk about world peace, but thats as impossible as a world of organisms that dont require food or energy to survive. The problem is not with humans, but with all of nature. The entire universe and laws of physics would need to change in order to achieve something like world peace.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 March 2012 11:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2012-01-23
srrr - 08 March 2012 04:58 AM

0username0, yes i think sex, or rather procreation, plays a large role in our behaviour. I think what you are ultimately getting at (while maybe not realising it), is the entire mechanism of “survival of the fittest” as identified by Darwin, of which procreation is a part. Two people are starving. There is only one apple left. Sharing it doesnt give enough nutrients to survive. The two people must fight over the apple and the winner survives.


This is the way nature works, war is inherent to it. Many people talk about world peace, but thats as impossible as a world of organisms that dont require food or energy to survive. The problem is not with humans, but with all of nature. The entire universe and laws of physics would need to change in order to achieve something like world peace.

And what I’m looking at is why do we get into scenarios where there is only one apple for two people.  I hope you don’t think these scenarios are a necessary part of life.  Prevention through wisdom.  What the point of going through such horrible scenarios if we can’t become wise enough to prevent them.  I think the biggest prevention measure we have is education and sexual selection.
Probably the biggest problem our species encounters is people who are actually hurt by doing the right thing, when it hurts someone to give up their hummer for a hybrid or a bicycle we have a problem.  When it emotionally hurts women to flock towards the kindest males, we have a problem.  People want to avoid pain, and it is a tragedy that some people are caused pain by doing the right thing.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed