People high in empathising and low in systematising are never based, because they don't hold the truth as an immutable sacred apex value that takes precedence above all else

They're fragile because they're pain avoidant, which is why they reflexively dismiss what they don't like
Someone high in systematising will say "I might not like that this is the case, but everything indicates that it is, so I accept that it is"

Someone high in empathising will find a way to just discredit, attack, rationalise or ignore what they don't like because it feels bad.
So people who are high in empathising and low in systematising are actually truth avoidant, and anti-intellectual - because reality doesn't care about their feelings, and their feelings don't care about reality.

Which means they are prone to reaching bullshit conclusions.
Think of systematising as a scale where the more of it you have, the more logical you are and the more you care about universal truths

If you're high IQ but your empathising is higher than your systematising, you become proficient in making arguments for your preferred delusions
Which is basically the state of academia today. Things which are clearly nonsense and anti-intellectual and plain false to believe (like nurture being more important than nature) are wholesale accepted as truth, and aggressively argued for as such, when this is not the case.
Making arguments for your preferred delusions = you can construct coherent logical frameworks which make sense in and of themselves and sound convincing to people, when they aren't actually representative of reality but are merely mapped over it as a form of narrative or ideology
Essentially it is the perversion of intellect away from the pursuit of truth towards the cultivation of propaganda which pretends to be the truth.

High empathising high IQs are the worst for this. They are people who don't care about reality pretending they do lying to everyone.
And the reason they are the worst for this is because they are the most convincing. They are the most pedantic and tiresome, good at explaining away data they don't like and twisting the data that they do. They use solid points to back up shitty conclusions. Very tiresome people.
You will often find yourself in the trap of agreeing with a point they made, and therefore implicitly agreeing with their wider argument. And then they say, well is what I just said right or wrong? And if you're reasonable you say it's right. And then they take that as a win.
They are master obfuscators. So you're always separating the sprinklings of truth within what they say from the overarching bullshit they are trying to push. They then misdirect and say well if you can see point X is right I don't see why you wouldn't accept argument Y. Tiresome.
This is also why I do not have respect for most academics. As Taleb said (who I disrespect for different reasons) - they are bullshit artists (like he is when it comes to IQ)

People who don't care about the truth but abuse their smarts to make nonsense seem like truth are trash.
When I refer to academics, I mean mainly the humanities here. Not the hard sciences. I don't think physicists are particularly interested in lying about the nature of the universe to us. But psychologists certainly love to bullshit us about human nature.
Why do you think physicists are more honest than psychologists? Because they are on aggregate significantly more systematising. Meaning they actually care more about the truth. Fields with low replicability are overrun with empathisers.

And thus this thread has come full circle.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with 🇬🇧 IM 🇬🇧

🇬🇧 IM 🇬🇧 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TellYourSonThis

20 Jul
If you want an elite woman for a daughter, you will condition her to have tolerance for the truth. You will always push her in the direction of truth seeking and growth, rather than comfort seeking and stagnation. This is how you make her strong. Truth avoidance = weakling person
You know a woman's father was a success when she has a feminine temperament (likes to follow, is sweet & warm etc) with masculine virtues (cares about truth and honour)

Any deviation from this = failure

Most people actually do a shit job of raising their daughters, and it shows
If you are intolerant of the truth, you are a mediocre person unworthy of respect.

You don't have to like something to respect its legitimacy. This is a basic lesson many people were never taught, and it's a sign of maturity to accept the legitimacy of something you don't like.
Read 4 tweets
17 Jul
Whilst emotionally abusive mothers can certainly raise toxic daughters, heartbreak and lack of fatherly direction appears to be the most common vector. A patriarch wouldn't enable a toxic mother, nor allow his daughter near bad influences.
Preserving women requires a large amount of prevention, meaning elimination of bad influence.

Of course if there is no father or a weak one, it is highly probable the default attitude will be feminist (negative feminine/destructive) in nature.
A father is a protector in all senses of the word, including both ideologically, and from the folly of the mother. A well behaved mother models femininity for her daughter. What causes a woman to behave well and keeps her in check? Her husband. The patriarch is the root.
Read 9 tweets
13 Jul
Competence and stoic detachment command authority. The loud obnoxious guy may be able to hold the attention of a room, but he has to compensate for deficits in knowledge with elaborate performances. An unfazed person who knows what they're doing shows them up just being there.
He is something of a performing monkey because his performance is all he has. He has to convince you with his act & his act alone, because if you ask penetrating questions he'll crash and burn. He is a house of cards, a signaller of authority not backed by competence. Human fiat.
His dismissiveness is evasiveness masquerading as strength - he doesn't refuse to answer the question because it's beneath him to do so, he doesn't answer it properly because he doesn't know how to, and he knows if you understand the topic better than he does he'll expose himself
Read 4 tweets
9 Jul
Conquer her through force, and she will resent you; conquer her through love, and she will appreciate you.

"It's better to be feared than loved" is true in many contexts, but not this one.
Women are attracted to dominance, and will challenge it only to succumb to it. They like the sense of safety, boundary and strength it provides, and yet begin to resent it the moment they perceive it as tyranny.

This is why it must be delivered lovingly, with cunning and tact.
Once they perceive it as tyranny, they begin to rebel against it even if they appear to cooperate with it. Resentment builds in their hearts and appreciation falls to the wayside, as the temptation to betray grows ever more seductive, leading them down a path of degeneracy.
Read 16 tweets
9 Jul
If you want true meritocracy, build a blog with long essays

If you are the best, you will do better numbers than all your competitors

On twitter someone with 20% your audience size can tweet "drink more water" and outdo your thoughtful threads regularly

Not a serious platform
When I realised Twitter is fucked like that I went from tweeting about 1,200 times a month down to 400-500.

At this point this account is more of a curated museum of knowledge than anything else.
Also Twitter works off network effects so lame accounts "in your category" get traffic of you for being algorithmically associated (eg: you both follow a lot of the same people, both like similar content, have mutuals etc)

On your own site you control who you're associated with.
Read 4 tweets
8 Jul
Liberalism is female nature, because liberal means do what you want, children like to do as they please, and women are childish. Freedom also means anarchy when you lack discipline, and they are anarchic by nature because their emotionalism renders them chaotic.
This is why women are not conservative in the same sense men are, because what they seek to preserve is narrower in scope and allows for greater contradiction. Be it that women are solely protective of children, whereas men are protective of both women and children.
When I say it allows for greater contradiction, what I mean is that women are parentally authoritarian, yet individualistically liberal. Presumably, because they see themselves as more responsible than children, and rightly so.

Men feel the same way - but in relation to women.
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(