Futurepundit: Why do psychopaths exist? The ladies help the psychopaths reproduce by going to bed with them. Men who are narcissistic, self-obsessed, liars, psychopaths, Machiavellian, and thrill-seekers get laid more.
**edit** for those reading, a lot of my other comments are being detected as spam :( */edit*
It's worth pointing out that statistically speaking, and this goes even for the very unattractive, while men as a group would clearly date/fuck a 10/10 good looking woman with big breasts and the like given the opportunity, and given they vary in shyness from individual to individual, and given the choice, they generally aim for the individual who is about as attractive as they are. Unlike women(who do NOT, they tend to aim about ~25% higher) men generally have a reasonable expectation of who is not just attainable, looks wise, but appropriate given what they bring to the table. The numbers were not yet available as of this comment, but they are now.
It might be that us nerds are less attuned to this than normal men. But normal men do not have this problem, and there would have to be data to support that claim beyond anecdotal.
Attraction to "bad boys" must be a hold over from when the talent for charisma buoyed manipulation and street smart fearlessness were a successful survival strategy - hey, like now.
Actually, if precipitated amyloid plaques were randomly blocking white matter pathways, that could explain why only certain gray matter degenerates over time for Alzheimer's patients, and why some physical therapy, &c. is useful -- it helps generate new white matter networks to the same old gray matter. If that's right, then Alzheimer's patients should be increasing blunt as the disease progresses.
Thanks for the pointer to the research. I'm not surprised to see that there is a neurological explanation for the relationship between autism and psychopathology -- i.e., that the ratio of white matter to gray is higher than average in psychopaths and lower than average in aspies. It seems that the white matter performs a multiplexing function for the gray matter's processing of information. It's interesting that white matter continues to develop into middle age whereas gray matter does not. Perhaps we have here a neurological explanation for the increase of wisdom with age? (If "wisdom" is defined as ability to understand a comprehend a wider perspective of human activity.)
From twin studies of autism, it seems that such brain physiology is not entirely genetic. Perhaps there is a point in early development when some bifurcation occurs, causing white matter either to develop too fast or too slow?
As an aside, I am a person who is unusually blunt, and easily flustered in large groups. I can't help wondering if that has to do with a white matter deficiency. I've not been diagnosed with Asperger's, however.
Interstingly, Silicon Valley seems to have a higher rate of Aperger's than the rest of the world. There is always the possibility that this is a fluctuation, but I imagine that some of this could have to do with the fact that white matter tends to develop more slowly when it isn't regularly stimulated. In effect, all of the highly educated scientists and engineers who have spent their lives in laboratories have stunted the growth of their white matter. That doesn't make them Asperger's, but if you throw in how mirror neurons contribute to learning, then it might explain why so many of their children are Asperger's -- it's because they're not mirroring a full spectrum of affect to their children. The problem is probably exacerbated by a general lack of time and attention to the children, which is caused by the intense work environment of startups and highly competitive technology companies.
Z.M. Davis: I hope that you feel well. For my part, apology accepted. Thank you for caring. Killthread seconded. I will post a follow-up given the level of interest.
I think I've, um, been kind of emotionally floored for much of the last fifteen hours. (It turns out that talk of banning has an intimidating effect of its own.) I hereby retract, and apologize for, my comment of June 28 at 01:55 AM. I would also humbly suggest a killthread, as this conversation may have outlived its usefulness. I am,
I'm a bit surprised at your puzzlement. If you read the materials from the pick-up community the mating game seems very simple:
Men go ga-ga over good looks, woman go ga-ga over high status. Seems pretty basic and simple. That really is all there is to it. Really. That's why woman spend so much of their time trying to look good and men spend so much of their time trying to create the outward appearance of high-status. These actitivites are simply what the opposite sex responds to, and are what signal reproductive fitness.
Disclaimer: I'm not being cynical here at all, I'm merely stating a completely amoral bald fact.
I don't really find it that interesting. I just have to note that humans seem to invest massive amounts of their time and energy playing these mating games, and I have to wonder what could be achieved if even a small fraction of all that time and energy was diverted into other pursuits.
This 'relationship' business must surely drain away massive amounts of time and energy that would be better spent on learning LISP or Ruby (for programming the AGI). I know for a fact that having someone else in my face all day would just drive me completely insane. It ain't worth it. The chicks are slowing you guys down too much ;)
(I might as well take this thread further off track.)
Michael: Your first sentence is obviously right, but how about people who get into moral philosophy later in life? The quote says "...those that have read...", but also "the degree or depth of your commitment", so it's not clear just what it is that's not a predictor. Google turns up other references, none of which unfortunately seem to say which factors were not good predictors; nor can I find anything on personality and the Milgram experiment. Anyway, this doesn't have much to do with the point about stereotypes of virtue and good/bad boys.
My guess is that hitting on the female posters is . . . in bad form.
I agree and do not mind that you point it out, Michael. (I hit on Sister Y about a month ago here.) My excuse is that because of chronic illness and attempts to ameliorate chronic illness, my brain occasionally "produces too much dopamine" (vast oversimplification, tentative hypothesis) which causes impulsivity and impairs social judgement.
I too find the conversation here vastly more worthwhile than most conversations and consequently worth defending.
Richard, et al-I was not trying to turn this blog into a personal mating ground... If any of you want to ask me something personal, take it to my 'junk' email address:Cingulate2000@gmail.comwhere my pseudonym is Lara Foster.
Err.. Nick: Won't serious adherence to any universalist ethical principle (Aristotle's principles are NOT universalist by the way) get you picked on in middle school for sure, not to mention forcing you to take risks and engage in... well... not adventures, but quests? I'm pretty sure that the bible doesn't count as a theory at all, but terribly few people explicitly even claim to model their behaviors on philosophical theories of ethics, even those of Aristotle, Kant, or Mill. I'm going to ignore Kant for its blatant failure to constitute a theory and then defy the data simply on the non-credibility of enough explicit Mill Utilitarians or Aristotelian golden mean of virtue adherents to create good studies or sample sets. Of course, if such people can't be found that is yet another reason to look for the motorcyclists instead.
Richard: Of course I wouldn't impose such standards anywhere else. This blog is on sacred ground. Standards are higher here. My guess is that hitting on the female posters is also in bad form, but I could be wrong in that regard.
Oh- Someone asked why don't women just post an add 'promiscuous woman seeking promiscuous man.' I can tell you exactly why- I tried doing basically just that (though I specified I was interested in good conversation, fun, and no-strings atatched sex, and the man had to be attractive and intelligent) and I got so swamped with lewd, disgusting, graphic, and disturbing responses, that I had to take the add down immediately. The most troublesome just read 'I know who you are,' from someone I have NO idea who he was... I don't think there was one person I would have considered meeting up with in the whole lot of them... So yeah fellahs- there does need to be a game... A SAFETY DANCE!
If what Goetz did happened 20 years ago or if Goetz was over 40 or 45 when it happened then his peer group might not have subscribed to the standard that you should not force a kiss on a person. The way I understand the standard that exists among people under 40 or 45 or so, you either ask for permission to kiss her or you move your lips to a couple of inches from her lips, then hold, which makes your intentions obvious, but lets her decide whether the kiss happens.
At any rate, Davis has had a hard-on (pun intended) for Goetz the whole comment thread, and I agree with Vassar that there should not be moral intimidation of a commentator for admitting to a minor violation in the course of presenting evidence that bears directly on the topic at hand or (to use Vassar's apt phrase) truth seeking.
(But is it not true, Vassar, that if you were to react with the same vehemence every time you observed someone attempt moral intimidation of someone else for not being sufficiently respectful of women or another "protected minority" then you would quickly wear yourself out?)
I hope Laura ABJ continues to comment on this blog. I thank her for her lively comments in this thread, particularly,
I want to further the rationalist cause, and I think things would go better if more overcoming bias readers got laid, by choicier ladies, more frequently.
I think the same thing -- of OB readers in general and myself in particular. I do not know how much she can help without meeting me in person (and I live in California and never travel to New York) but if she is willing to try, I would like to receive an email from her.
She sat up like she's just gotten an electric shock, and she wrapped both arms around me and started kissing me passionately.
Of course never forget that there was no time for her to make a real decision. You took her by surprise, the "electric shock" is probably the adrenalin release she felt. Her adrenalized and time constrained brain just responded with the default reaction and since you were no stranger in the night she went along with it. What she felt inwards or afterwards is another question.
Goetz-Since M. Vassar tells me that you are *actually* a nice person in person, I will not discount everything you say as the rantings of a foolishbittermisogynisticnerd, but I will instead inform you that Davis's reaction was also mine- though I might not have typed it out on this forum, and presenting an incident where you, in your mind, *intended* to inflict gross disrespect upon a woman merely for seeming bored with you (note she could have been distracted with her own problems), does not win you any sympathies among any female audience-- but rather places you in the 'entitled bastard' category in the minds of most readers. If you want to present the perverse desires of your soul as bayesian evidence, don't be surprised if some people will realize they don't like you. I appreciate the honesty- it is a risk.
**edit** for those reading, a lot of my other comments are being detected as spam :( */edit*
It's worth pointing out that statistically speaking, and this goes even for the very unattractive, while men as a group would clearly date/fuck a 10/10 good looking woman with big breasts and the like given the opportunity, and given they vary in shyness from individual to individual, and given the choice, they generally aim for the individual who is about as attractive as they are. Unlike women(who do NOT, they tend to aim about ~25% higher) men generally have a reasonable expectation of who is not just attainable, looks wise, but appropriate given what they bring to the table. The numbers were not yet available as of this comment, but they are now.
It might be that us nerds are less attuned to this than normal men. But normal men do not have this problem, and there would have to be data to support that claim beyond anecdotal.
[1] Christian Rudder - Dataclysm
Attraction to "bad boys" must be a hold over from when the talent for charisma buoyed manipulation and street smart fearlessness were a successful survival strategy - hey, like now.
Fumi Bankole, author of Canaan's Labyrinth
Actually, if precipitated amyloid plaques were randomly blocking white matter pathways, that could explain why only certain gray matter degenerates over time for Alzheimer's patients, and why some physical therapy, &c. is useful -- it helps generate new white matter networks to the same old gray matter. If that's right, then Alzheimer's patients should be increasing blunt as the disease progresses.
@Ben Hyink
Thanks for the pointer to the research. I'm not surprised to see that there is a neurological explanation for the relationship between autism and psychopathology -- i.e., that the ratio of white matter to gray is higher than average in psychopaths and lower than average in aspies. It seems that the white matter performs a multiplexing function for the gray matter's processing of information. It's interesting that white matter continues to develop into middle age whereas gray matter does not. Perhaps we have here a neurological explanation for the increase of wisdom with age? (If "wisdom" is defined as ability to understand a comprehend a wider perspective of human activity.)
From twin studies of autism, it seems that such brain physiology is not entirely genetic. Perhaps there is a point in early development when some bifurcation occurs, causing white matter either to develop too fast or too slow?
As an aside, I am a person who is unusually blunt, and easily flustered in large groups. I can't help wondering if that has to do with a white matter deficiency. I've not been diagnosed with Asperger's, however.
Interstingly, Silicon Valley seems to have a higher rate of Aperger's than the rest of the world. There is always the possibility that this is a fluctuation, but I imagine that some of this could have to do with the fact that white matter tends to develop more slowly when it isn't regularly stimulated. In effect, all of the highly educated scientists and engineers who have spent their lives in laboratories have stunted the growth of their white matter. That doesn't make them Asperger's, but if you throw in how mirror neurons contribute to learning, then it might explain why so many of their children are Asperger's -- it's because they're not mirroring a full spectrum of affect to their children. The problem is probably exacerbated by a general lack of time and attention to the children, which is caused by the intense work environment of startups and highly competitive technology companies.
Z.M. Davis: I hope that you feel well. For my part, apology accepted. Thank you for caring. Killthread seconded. I will post a follow-up given the level of interest.
I think I've, um, been kind of emotionally floored for much of the last fifteen hours. (It turns out that talk of banning has an intimidating effect of its own.) I hereby retract, and apologize for, my comment of June 28 at 01:55 AM. I would also humbly suggest a killthread, as this conversation may have outlived its usefulness. I am,
Yours in truthseeking,Z. M. Davis
Phil,
I'm a bit surprised at your puzzlement. If you read the materials from the pick-up community the mating game seems very simple:
Men go ga-ga over good looks, woman go ga-ga over high status. Seems pretty basic and simple. That really is all there is to it. Really. That's why woman spend so much of their time trying to look good and men spend so much of their time trying to create the outward appearance of high-status. These actitivites are simply what the opposite sex responds to, and are what signal reproductive fitness.
Disclaimer: I'm not being cynical here at all, I'm merely stating a completely amoral bald fact.
I don't really find it that interesting. I just have to note that humans seem to invest massive amounts of their time and energy playing these mating games, and I have to wonder what could be achieved if even a small fraction of all that time and energy was diverted into other pursuits.
This 'relationship' business must surely drain away massive amounts of time and energy that would be better spent on learning LISP or Ruby (for programming the AGI). I know for a fact that having someone else in my face all day would just drive me completely insane. It ain't worth it. The chicks are slowing you guys down too much ;)
(I might as well take this thread further off track.)
Michael: Your first sentence is obviously right, but how about people who get into moral philosophy later in life? The quote says "...those that have read...", but also "the degree or depth of your commitment", so it's not clear just what it is that's not a predictor. Google turns up other references, none of which unfortunately seem to say which factors were not good predictors; nor can I find anything on personality and the Milgram experiment. Anyway, this doesn't have much to do with the point about stereotypes of virtue and good/bad boys.
Richard? Don't do it again.
My guess is that hitting on the female posters is . . . in bad form.
I agree and do not mind that you point it out, Michael. (I hit on Sister Y about a month ago here.) My excuse is that because of chronic illness and attempts to ameliorate chronic illness, my brain occasionally "produces too much dopamine" (vast oversimplification, tentative hypothesis) which causes impulsivity and impairs social judgement.
I too find the conversation here vastly more worthwhile than most conversations and consequently worth defending.
Richard, et al-I was not trying to turn this blog into a personal mating ground... If any of you want to ask me something personal, take it to my 'junk' email address:Cingulate2000@gmail.comwhere my pseudonym is Lara Foster.
Err.. Nick: Won't serious adherence to any universalist ethical principle (Aristotle's principles are NOT universalist by the way) get you picked on in middle school for sure, not to mention forcing you to take risks and engage in... well... not adventures, but quests? I'm pretty sure that the bible doesn't count as a theory at all, but terribly few people explicitly even claim to model their behaviors on philosophical theories of ethics, even those of Aristotle, Kant, or Mill. I'm going to ignore Kant for its blatant failure to constitute a theory and then defy the data simply on the non-credibility of enough explicit Mill Utilitarians or Aristotelian golden mean of virtue adherents to create good studies or sample sets. Of course, if such people can't be found that is yet another reason to look for the motorcyclists instead.
Richard: Of course I wouldn't impose such standards anywhere else. This blog is on sacred ground. Standards are higher here. My guess is that hitting on the female posters is also in bad form, but I could be wrong in that regard.
Oh- Someone asked why don't women just post an add 'promiscuous woman seeking promiscuous man.' I can tell you exactly why- I tried doing basically just that (though I specified I was interested in good conversation, fun, and no-strings atatched sex, and the man had to be attractive and intelligent) and I got so swamped with lewd, disgusting, graphic, and disturbing responses, that I had to take the add down immediately. The most troublesome just read 'I know who you are,' from someone I have NO idea who he was... I don't think there was one person I would have considered meeting up with in the whole lot of them... So yeah fellahs- there does need to be a game... A SAFETY DANCE!
If what Goetz did happened 20 years ago or if Goetz was over 40 or 45 when it happened then his peer group might not have subscribed to the standard that you should not force a kiss on a person. The way I understand the standard that exists among people under 40 or 45 or so, you either ask for permission to kiss her or you move your lips to a couple of inches from her lips, then hold, which makes your intentions obvious, but lets her decide whether the kiss happens.
At any rate, Davis has had a hard-on (pun intended) for Goetz the whole comment thread, and I agree with Vassar that there should not be moral intimidation of a commentator for admitting to a minor violation in the course of presenting evidence that bears directly on the topic at hand or (to use Vassar's apt phrase) truth seeking.
(But is it not true, Vassar, that if you were to react with the same vehemence every time you observed someone attempt moral intimidation of someone else for not being sufficiently respectful of women or another "protected minority" then you would quickly wear yourself out?)
I hope Laura ABJ continues to comment on this blog. I thank her for her lively comments in this thread, particularly,
I want to further the rationalist cause, and I think things would go better if more overcoming bias readers got laid, by choicier ladies, more frequently.
I think the same thing -- of OB readers in general and myself in particular. I do not know how much she can help without meeting me in person (and I live in California and never travel to New York) but if she is willing to try, I would like to receive an email from her.
Phil:
She sat up like she's just gotten an electric shock, and she wrapped both arms around me and started kissing me passionately.
Of course never forget that there was no time for her to make a real decision. You took her by surprise, the "electric shock" is probably the adrenalin release she felt. Her adrenalized and time constrained brain just responded with the default reaction and since you were no stranger in the night she went along with it. What she felt inwards or afterwards is another question.
Goetz-Since M. Vassar tells me that you are *actually* a nice person in person, I will not discount everything you say as the rantings of a foolishbittermisogynisticnerd, but I will instead inform you that Davis's reaction was also mine- though I might not have typed it out on this forum, and presenting an incident where you, in your mind, *intended* to inflict gross disrespect upon a woman merely for seeming bored with you (note she could have been distracted with her own problems), does not win you any sympathies among any female audience-- but rather places you in the 'entitled bastard' category in the minds of most readers. If you want to present the perverse desires of your soul as bayesian evidence, don't be surprised if some people will realize they don't like you. I appreciate the honesty- it is a risk.