What about if something is believed, precisely because it’s false

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

Have you ever thought of something societies believe, precisely because it’s false.

In Poker, for example, people bluff precisely because they have bad card. If they have normal card they don’t raise bets. If they have good cards, they raise bets but that’s not bluffing.

When the flaks are near, the bombers are near target.

People with false beliefs don’t care about the truth. They launch flak and claim certain things are offensive precisely because those things are true.

For example, people say you can’t speak against someone “weak”.

The truth is, you can’t speak against someone, not because that person is weak but because that person is strong. You know who rules you by seeing who you can’t criticize.

So the idea that you can’t speak against, trans, for example, is because trans lobby is so strong that a mere less than 1% of population can make the rest bend over backward.

Or what about, self sacrifice? In my school, this is taught as a virtue. But what do I get if I am willing to sacrifice my self interests? Well, I am not even supposed to question it because that’s the whole point of self sacrifice, you don’t care what you get.

But then again, what do I get? Will people be more nice to me if I am not too selfish? What about if the truth is the opposite. What about if people will be nicer to me if I am selfish. If I am nice, I tend to do things to please people.

If I am selfish, I tend to do things only if it benefits me. So the only way people can motivate me to be beneficial to them is by mutually beneficially trading. When I was young I read a christian tractates. Women that want to be happy shouldn’t pick a rich man and man that want to be happy shouldn’t pick pretty women.

What about the truth is the exact opposite. Your dopamine and serotonin, will spike out if you get high quality sex partners? And that the idea that men shouldn’t aim for pretty women is spoken, precisely because it’s the opposite of what’s true.

We are told to respect women. What about if women actually look down on men that respect her.

We are told that paying women is abusive and men that see women as sex objects hate women. What about if the very reason why people think that way is because many very smart beautiful women like men that pay them and in return, treat them as sex objects?

Anything else? Something is believed precisely because it suggest something that is not true.

Understanding Things Through Motives

When we look at this, it’s pretty obvious of what’s actually happening. For example, the pictures claim that Dinosaurs have sex and then meteor comes. If we see this as “truth” so many things are just absurd. How the hell the author knows that meteor comes because dinosaurs have sex? Also we know all animals have sex pretty much a lot. That’s how all sexual creature reproduce. Do we see higher meteor shower when they have more sex or what?

But if we see the motive behind the picture, things are obvious. Some people do not like sex to be governed by free market and prefer that to be governed by religion or government. So they basically say that you shouldn’t have sex before marriage. And then they made things up. It’s easy for people that do not believe in Christianity, for example, to see how obvious what’s going on is.

However, if you’re inside their bubble, if you’re a Christian, you are confused as hell. Plenty of political rhetoric are like that. Some says bigger government in healthcare will make it cheaper. I bet it doesn’t. Another say welfare decrease poverty. It actually increase it. In fact, most poor people would have gone extinct by starvation if not because of welfare and hence gone. Some are just plain vague.

This is offensive. That is racist.

Again, seeing what do they want and what sort of nonsense they would spew to motivate us to do what they want is a better way to see things. Do you have a sample where you start of inside the bubble and you really get confused? You feel uncomfortable, weird.

Things don’t make sense at all. And then, you start seeing things outside the bubble and things tend to be obvious?

For example. How to get rich. When I was a kid, I thought the way to do it is to study hard and then get a good job and so on and so on. But so many things don’t make sense with the model. Why everyone moves at the same speed even though some just learn faster? Why do I have to learn courses that don’t make money?

Why do I have to memorize names and so on and so on…. And yet everyone acts like everything is fine and I am an idiot for questioning those.

Of course, after reading books like Rich Dad Poor Dad, and Federal Mafia, things start making sense to me. Any similar experience?

May be an image of text that says 'THE DINOSAURS HAD SEX... AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM. ABSTINENCE I go to a Christian college and just walked into a residence hall and am crying laughing'

What is a Good Father?

What is a good father? Can you tell me what you think and WHY?

What do I mean by why?

Say Bob beats up his children to death. Charlie raise his children to be successful start up founders. Which one is a better father?

Most people would say Charlie. But why? Well, because Charlie will produce richer smarter children, with pulses and all.

So, the point is, not just you got to tell me what you THINK is a good father, but you got to see some higher purpose of why you think fathers with certain traits are better father. And that higher purpose should be something we tend to agree more and measurable.

Here, I think Charlie is a better father because his children will be richer and smarter and in return will give Charlie richer and smarter grand children. And we can measure that. For example, we can measure if sugar daddies that have children with high IQ whores tend to have richer and smarter children than say, normal monogamous couple.

Without reasons, people can say anyone is a good father. I could, for example, say, Bob is a better father. Why? Because I say so. Why aren’t you listening to reasons and advices and my opinions bla bla. And that’s pretty much how everyone has been dealing with me.

They said that good fathers give hugs, change diapers, and teach boundary. But they never explain how changing diapers, teaching boundary, or giving hugs produce richer children or some objective we can have more consensus is important, such as being wealthy.

What is the GOAL here? It’s like they think without a goal at all?

Now, what do you think is your definition of better father and what is the goal you want to achieve by that definition. Please explain what sort of traits make good father and what sort of measurable goals fathers with those traits achieve.

What will Greatly Affect Income

Can we predict which factors will have higher correlation with wealth.

1. Graduate high school (I don’t like this because graduating high school is a Boolean variable)

2. Have parents that have children after 21 (age of first children for parents)

3. Have wealthy parents/wealthy fathers/wealthy mothers

4. IQ of parents

5. Married parents

6. Number of parents in household (1 parent/2 parents/3 parents) households. That’s because many insist that being married is important for children’s wealth. That however, doesn’t explain whether rich parents cohabiting will more likely have richer children than say, married poor parents when the marriage is certified by the state. I wonder if getting your marriage certified and approved by the state has anything to do with your children’s wealth and if the effect is bigger than other factors.

7. Number of siblings. I mention this because I and my bro has synergy. He’s better at interpersonal skill. I am better at Math and analyzing risk. I am so bad at interpersonal skill it’s hard for me to work with others because they would scam me all the time.

8. Biological fathers changing diapers. Many says that good father changes diapers. So I wonder if there is strong causal/correlation between fathers changing diapers and wealth of children.

Are there any stats on these data?

Also I wonder if the correlation can be done creatively. For example, wealth is not normally distributed. When you’re on top, you get richer and richer. So maybe correlation between say, IQ and log of wealth?

Causality is another story. I want to know too.

Before seeing statistic, I wanna see if we can make a guess, and tell why and then see the actual statistic.

Anyway this is if we want to be a bit racist

https://jonboeckenstedt.net/2020/01/10/some-final-thoughts-on-the-sat-and-act/
https://jonboeckenstedt.net/2020/01/10/some-final-thoughts-on-the-sat-and-act/

Questioning Pure Capitalism

All this time I seem to be very pro capitalism. I’ve been thinking, what about if I am actually more interested in something that’s not exactly the same.

That is, proper alignment between a person’s interests, and his economic productivity in the world. That is, it doesn’t have to be capitalistic. I don’t protest government court, or common defense, or cops, or roads, or even reasonable redistribution of wealth. I’ll give you a sample.

Under capitalism the price of good is the marginal usefulness of that good. If apple is $2 each that means one additional apple adds $2 to total happiness. That looks like proper alignment.

Of course this doesn’t work all the time. A doctor will recommend drugs he is paid by pharmacies to give. A lawyer can did the same. Many times customers have no idea what’s best for him.

Often sellers will hide important part of deals so customers buy due to mistakes.

Who build the road. What about if wealth gap is too high? What would stop the poor from just looting the rich?

So even though I like capitalism, it’s not like I am a hardcore anti commie.

I like land tax and UBI. I don’t like income tax and welfare, for example. Both are redistributive. However, income tax punish productive people. Welfare actually put power in politicians hands. Those politicians then use that to reward women to be single mothers, for example.

We don’t have that problem with land tax and universal basic income for childless adult.

Drug laws are another issue. Drug users care about their health. Politicians don’t care and want to criminalize all drugs, including the save one.

I wonder if any of you can see perverse incentive, where incentive of those who are in power is simply grossly misaligned to economy as a whole? And what is your fix?

To me, a solution is to have the market on top of the non market solutions.

For example, if we do not know which doctor is good, we need a market for doctor chooser. That will be better than government regulation. If we don’t like our government we should make it easy for disgruntled citizen to sell their voting right and right to live and move to another country.

Prejudices Against Capitalism

One of the thing I learned in Mensa is that good fathers change diapers. The problem with that sentence is it looks like prejudice to me. It doesn’t even make sense scientifically. What is a good father?

Is there any research that shows linkage between father changing diapers and children’s future income or wealth?

I bet fathers that change their own children diapers will have children with lower income. Such fathers don’t hire baby sitters and are usually poorer. So why do people believe that good fathers change diapers?

If you can’t measure something, that means the idea doesn’t even have objective meaning. Abusive, harassment, racism. Different people have different ideas of it. So how the hell the idea that good fathers change diapers become common? It doesn’t make sense.

It’s not supported by any research. I asked the person for research and can’t find any. My guess is that changing diapers is expensive for fathers that can hire baby sitters. So anything that is more expensive for richer dads is believed without evidence.

Our world have very strong prejudices against capitalism.

And that’s why we have those weird bigotic ideas. Are there samples of other prejudices?

Pyramid that Makes Sense

I totally agree with this pyramid. I think land tax is the least harmful. Basically the more fair a tax is, the least harmful it is.

I would say georgian land tax is not only least harmful it’s actually good. It makes land allocated efficiently. Consumption taxes sucks is next.

That’s because productive individuals can still get rich by consuming less. Personal income tax is next because it punish people for working hard. However, one may argue that high salary in the west is due to better government. Corporate tax is the most harmful for economy.

The reason is the same with personal income tax except that the government is taxing an entity that can simply incorporate somewhere else. If you are an American employee, you may earn $100k because you work in US and hence, can’t escape to say, Seyschelles or Indonesia.

However, if you’re an American corporation, there is nothing that make the corporation to have to stay in USA. Now that we know about this pyramid, and I wonder if there are more sources for this, why don’t people start wanting more land taxes?

May be an image of text that says 'DECD Hierarchy of Taxes: Which tax affects economic growth? Corporate Taxes Most Harmful Personal Personal Income Taxes Consumption Taxes Property Taxes Least Harmfu'

Marriage vs Pay for Sex

Marriage vs Pay for Sex| Gambler/game theory perspective

1. She left. Marriage, she got half your money and fuck your bully and commies. Pay for sex? She left. You stop paying. Period.

2. She stays. Marriage? Cost half your money and she run your life. Also you must be “loyal”. Can’t fuck around. Pay for sex? You can order her to do 3 some.

3. She likes you. Marriage. Cost half your money and monogamy. Also even if she likes you, the fact that now she can fuck milk men and get your money anyway is an option that’s tricky. Pay for sex. If she likes you enough to fuck you for free, paying won’t hurt.

4. She doesn’t like you. Marriage…. She will pretend to like you so you marry her and then leave you. Pay for sex? She can pretend all you want. You pay based on performance.

More honesty. Worse come to worse, she really doesn’t like you and offering money don’t change that. You just save money. It seems that marriage is strictly dominated in all situation compared to sugar relationship. So why would anyone still want to get married?

Government Cartel Up

Cry. Makes me cry. But then again, this cartel will fail. We need just tiny nations like seyschelles charging 0% income tax and that’s it. The whole cartel will crumble.

No cheap thrills for Amazon, FB and other gaints.
https://9gag.com/gag/anQAwvL

Income tax punish innocent productive individuals. Hell, I wouldn’t like income tax if I were a commie. Ancient communists complain about land distribution. In china, poor farmers don’t have land and work for landlords.

In modern USA, workers are taxed like fuck and the money is used to improve land value that benefit landlords. Income tax is neither capitalistic or socialist. Both should hate income tax.

Understanding Non Transactional Relationship

I am trying to understand how non transactional relationship works. Say relationship is not transactional and women pick men strictly based on who they like. So our species are like peacocks.

What about if all women prefer Brad Pitt? How the hell I can compete with Brad Pitt or Leonardo de Caprio?

If relationship is NOT transactional, every women will pick Brad Pitt then. Why would anyone pick me, or you, or any of us?

Someone points out that Brad Pitt doesn’t offer loyalty.

There are 2 problems with that argument.

1. What does loyalty mean? Not leaving the woman or the woman is the only one? Both can mean loyalty. I think the second one means monogamy but people calling it loyalty just want to deliberately obfuscate words. Also all men, including Brad Pitt, want multiple women.

2. Even if loyalty means monogamy, a very strange choice of words. This presumes that women want to be the only one way above how much they want much more handsome and richer men. My understanding of evolutionary psychology says the truth is the opposite.

You see why this doesn’t make sense? Women pick most of us because of lack of choices. Namely, they can’t choose better guys.

In fact, this is what most males do in western civilization.

In marriage, we can only pick singles. That is, we remove all men that already have a spouse from marriage market. Why? Because those that are “taken” are usually better competitors.

This used to work just fine when marriage was important. Now, rich guys can know who their children are through cheap paternity tests and most children are born out of wedlock. Keeping marriage monogamy is like building a dam with nets.

Another arguments in favor of monogamy is to reduce incel population. The idea is that if too many guys can’t find girlfriend or wife, the society will collapse. The problem is 30% of guys under 30 in US is incel anyway.

For societies not to collapse, it makes way more sense that the incels are the one not contributing to the economy. Making transactional sex illegal keep many productive people incel. It actually increase numbers of incels.