One of the most interesting things i’ve learned from this book so far is the topic of mansplaining, and how what women perceive as misogyny is actually the man being an egalitarian.

I’ll try to summarize.

From a high level: the feminine trusts the experts, while the masculine verifies them.

This means that among women when it comes to who gets to make the decision or pontificate on the topic, they try to figure out who knows the most about it and then they quietly listen and follow her advice.

While among men, when someone asserts themselves as an expert, the other men see this as a bid for power, and so they challenge them to make sure that they are genuinely an expert and deserving of their subordination to him on this topic.

So what happens is that women expect other people to not challenge them on the things they perceive themselves as the expert on. Say, if she is the project manager, everyone who is not the project manager should defer to her judgement.

But what happens when dealing with a man is that he challenges her, and the more she tries to say “erm sweety i’m the expert” the more he feels the need to challenge her.

What he wants and expects is that if she truly is the expert, she can show him how he is wrong and his idea is stupid and prove that she deserves the title of SME on this so that he can respect and trust her judgement.

However to her this offensive and rude. And furthermore, she doesn’t see him do this to the men so he must be questioning her or pontificating despite not knowing as much because she is a woman. But what’s actually the case is that he did do that to the men too, they just proved to him that they deserved the title and so he stopped. There is this introductory period of shit testing that the others passed.

But because no one has ever challenged her before, all the girlies just say “oh you’re so smart ms expert” she’s not experienced at fighting back. And so even when she does genuinely know more, she fumbles the shit test and loses his respect, making him more likely to challenge her in the future.

The most ironic bit here is that what she perceives of as misogyny is actually him being a radical egalitarian. Most men are brought up to treat a woman with kid gloves and not do this type of shit testing as hard as they do with men. But as we’ve dissolved these practices, more and more men are not seeing gender and do treat women like men and they get decried as sexist. FWIW there’s a bunch of other gems this good in the book. I might write more posts if the inspiration hits. you should def read it.

I will say that one of the other key args is that male communication is all about status and pecking order. We are always looking out for threats to our status, or opportunities to gain more, in the way that women are always looking for threats to their physical safety or opportunities to gain more resources and protection.

Once you fully ingest this truth you realize that every reply from every man on X is a bid in a status war.

99% of male X replies fit into one of four categories:

1. Make a good argument to earn the respect higher status men, raising his status

2. associate with higher status men to raise his own status

3. brown nose a really high status man in hopes to be taken under their wing or shed status to bum via #2

4. Challenge a higher status male in intellectual combat. Just by them engaging it raises his status and actually defeating them is the greatest status win of all.

https://x.com/minordissent/status/1990980572408377838

By age 30 your income percentile rank should match your IQ percentile rank, as it is really the only immutable thing about your personality which impacts your earning potential. If you are way below this, you have a lot of work to do on improving your conscientiousness, neuroticism, etc. if you are way behind, 40 is next. time to lock in.

One of the most valuable mental heuristics i’ve adopted for my life is:

“what you have is what you deserve”

This doesn’t mean you don’t have the potential to become the type of person who “deserves better”. You do. Probably 10X or even 100x so.

But you, as you currently exist, are getting exactly what current you deserve.

If you have a problem with that (you should), you will need to do the hard work of taking risk or improving yourself to get somewhere else. An adjacent idea is:

“people treat you how you let them”

You’d be amazed how even the worst people will treat you better if you simply stop tolerating them treating you poorly.

Literally just saying:

“It doesn’t work for me when you do X. Here’s what i’d like you to do instead. What would you need from me to do that?”

Can solve like 90% of relationship issues like OP

The purpose of a high IQ is to solve puzzles that other people need solved so they will give you money and status and power.

If you waste this ability on video games and navel gazing about the horrors of existence, you are going to have a bad time. Anyone who replies without knowing the definition of IQ will be blocked.

IQ is literally defined as puzzle solving ability. What do you think an IQ test is? It’s a bunch of puzzles. The harder the puzzles you can solve, the higher your IQ.

Life is a just a bunch of puzzles. If you solve useless ones that benefit no one you will at best be a parasite to the people who solve useful puzzles and at worst very depressed about the fact that you are a parasite who only consumes but does not produce.

Just because a puzzle is not immediately and obviously economically valued does not mean the OP doesn’t apply. I literally spend 20% of my time writing useless philosophy that makes me no money.

It’s because i am competing in a status rather than a money game.

Obviously, you can and should reward your productivity with completely non valuable puzzles such as video games or whatever. Literally not a single person on the planet, even Elon Musk, uses their puzzle solving ability SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY for power, status, and money. You would burn out if you didn’t have ANY fun.

The point is that you must use your puzzle solving ability MOSTLY to raise your level in power, status, and money hierarchies, else you will be weak, low status, and poor, all of which are guaranteed to make you useless, alone, depressed, and resentful.

Women hate making decisions. The only decision they want to make is which guy to outsource their decision making to. If she’s having sex with you, she has chosen you as her decision maker.

If you are not making all her important decisions, you are failing her. and she’s going to become a naggy anxious controlling bitch as a result.

She wants to have input, she needs you to care about her well being, yes. But she picked you because you care about her. Now she needs you to make the hard decisions and LEAD THE WAY.

She knows she is going to prioritize her immediate comfort over her long term well being and avoid the hard and scary and painful choices that will benefit her in the long run. And she SHOULD do that.

It is your job to do the opposite. To make those hard choices. It’s literally why she hired you.

Together, through your dialectic, you will make the balanced choice that minimizing short term pain and maximizing long term gain.

The answer is obvious. Literally every single woman could answer it easily.

I know most here are too autistic to talk to a woman so let me try to illuminate it for you:

Becoming a mother is an all-consuming and irreversible trajectory change in life.

You are physically handicapped from the moment you get pregnant until a year after your kid is born. Your kids can't bear to be not physically attached to you for more than a few minutes until they themselves are at least two. You remain utterly dependent on your husband (or some other resource provider) and completely enslaved to your children's needs until the youngest is at least five.

And while yes you can start to do some other stuff after that point, if you actually stayed home and took care of your kids full time like you're supposed to, you now have a decade long gap in your work experience that permanently toasts your life time earnings and career growth.

Women used to have no choice in whether—and little choice in when—they would adopt this responsibility. Now they do. And that has changed their calculus.

Even women who want children and have some idea of how fulfilling the challenge of and submission to it can be will still hesitate to do it. And some will even opt out entirely. And this is a totally sane and rational response to the situation they find themselves in.

Just look at the results to this thought experiment I posted. Even when there is a 90% chance of a 20X return, only about a third would take it. When I changed it to more realistic numbers based on modern divorce rates, effectively no one took it.

These response rates are from autistic, intellectually dissident men, most of whom have little to lose. They are likely deep into the top decile of risk tolerance. What do you think the average woman (highly risk averse) would respond with?

The reason "women's politics revolve around the right to murder their own children" is the same reason men's politics revolves around our right to not die in wars or get divorced raped by family courts or get taxed into oblivion or get replaced by a bunch of low IQ freaks (and is also the same reason men are opting out of marriage).
Men having more diverse political interests is not because we are intellectually superior or whatever gay self-aggrandizing intuition autistic men are implying in this question. It's because innate to our biology and role in the species, we simply have more variance in what we need to care about.

For all of human history women's primary role was to raise the kids and men's was to take care of basically everything else. And for this reason we had the opportunity to choose our vocation. Our variance in vocation, and by extension interest, is simply a function of the fact that our job is not chosen for us by our biology like it is for women.

"Women are born valuable. Men must become valuable".

Both of these situations are a double-edged sword. Women have the benefit that they will be valued even if they do not develop themselves in any way what so ever. While men have the benefit that they have complete freedom to become whatever they want as long as it is valuable.

Women have the downside that if they don't want to be valued in the way their biology dictates: too bad. Sucks nerd. You don't get a choice. While men have the downside that if they don't want to develop themselves, they get expelled from the tribe and left to die.

In the same way that millions of lazy, stupid, or otherwise defunct modern men like to romanticize how women "live life on easy mode" by nature of being born valuable, millions of disagreeable, unattractive, or otherwise defunct modern women like to romanticize the male opportunity for agency and freedom of being able to choose your life vocation.
The question is like asking: "Why do so much of blind people's politics revolve around the right to cover everything in Braille?" or "Why do starving African people's politics resolve so much around getting food?"

Until a woman has a man she trusts to financial provide for and take care of her, literally nothing matters more than her ability to defer motherhood until that happens.

As male and female SMV continues to tank, so too will the birth rate.

The number of ethical, capable, and financially well off men as well as beautiful, kind, and supportive women is collapsing.

When these low SMV women try to find mates, there is slim pickings. So they have no choice but to defer motherhood. And eventually (we are already seeing this) they will abscond motherhood altogether, instead choosing to be effectively a man, choosing his carrer vocation.

Women being obsessed with "reproductive rights" is half innate biological necessity and half a symptom of the much broader decline of the sexual marketplace.

Why do some women get the hots for broke dudes with no job? Because women dont care about money, they care about FEELING SAFE.

I will explain as thread. Some women achieve this feeling of safety via financial security. It’s probably the “most popular” method.

But there are plenty of other methods. Another popular one is feeling physically safe, so they look for big jacked dudes that will protect them from physical threat.

Modernity aimed to elevate reason over superstition.

But all it actually did was replace old superstitions with new ones, claiming they were reasoned.

They weren’t! Post modernity is the realization of this truth.

It may seem like post modernity is destructive but that is only because we are early.

Most people are still in denial. And most of the smart ones are still in anger, bargaining, or depression.

This piece is wild. Literally admits everything us “conspiracy theorists” have been trying to point out for 2 years.

I am astounded it was allowed to be published.

Some key take ways in comments.

https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1628237524958162944

First few paragraphs verbatim:

“The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses — including Covid-19 — was published late last month. Its conclusions…

Matrix Resurrections’ fundamental plot was actually very good.

A self reflection on how the left thought Postmodernism would free them from lies but simply led them to new different lies.

But the movie itself was fairly bad. Very MCU both in it’s acting and cinematography. The post production and color filters stripped it of it’s depth. But I think was intentional.

The constant 4th wall breaking was also cringe but added to the philosophical point of it.

The fundamental error all politically interested people make is to think passing a law that aims to solve a problem is going to succeed at solving it.

99% of solutions dont work. govt or not.

Because of this, people vote their values, not for results. people who love the environment want more EPA.

people who love health want more FDA.

People who love safety want more Police etc.

Whether any law or change actually improves these things doesnt matter. It is presupposed it will.

Why Bitcoin Fixes Everything

(thread) A credit/debt based economy requires an inflationary monetary policy.

An inflationary monetary creates a credit/debt based economy.

If your principal costs MORE (deflationary) in the future, debt is a last resort

If it will cost less (inflationary), debt is a first choice.

Few understood the internet in 1995. but also few fought it.

That’s bc people couldn't compare it to anything. So it was knowledge or nothing.

#Bitcoin OTOH can look like a lot of bad things (ponzi scheme, envnmnt harm, etc) making the uninformed fight it instead of ignore it.

https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/1388360539772887043

Ironically, the same properties that cause the uninformed to fight against #Bitcoin are also what cause the informed to fight for it (it actually CAN make everyone money, it can also save the world including the environment from the externalities of fiat money, etc)

Why Is Crypto Twitter So Divided?

My preliminary thoughts (thread):

1. Bitcoin and not-Bitcoin are functionally two completely separate fields of study.

Bitcoin is in economics/government

The rest (Eth, DeFi, etc) are technology/finance. Bitcoiners dont care about making wall street (leverage, derivatives, market making, etc) efficient or all the “cool tech” stuff of DeFi et al.

Non-bitcoiners don’t understand 50%+ of the world’s problems can be solved by replacing fiat money with hard money.