Four Potential Employees

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

The first says she wants to volunteer

The second says she wants high profit sharing

The third says she wants high salary

The fourth says she wants high severance pay

Which one you would almost definitely hire irrelevant of quality? Which one you shouldn’t under any circumstances irrelevant of quality? For which one quality matter most?

The first is those who like free sex and has ways to support her self

The second is those who like free sex but need money to support her kids IF they are yours

The third is a prostitute

The fourth wants to be a wife

A Better Way to Introduce MySelf

Would be on these few sentences
1. Every kid deserves a rich smart BIOLOGICAL dad.
2. If women prefer the rich, how can there be many kids with poor dad?
3. If it’s your money, and women prefer you, why should it be someone else’ cock?

I learn game theory and evolutionary psychology a lot to see answers to these 3 truth riddles. The answers are obvious but incomplete.

I went from forum to forum and am surprised by people’s response to my statements. It’s as if everyone else is under some powerful spell that they don’t see the obvious.

Some for example think that women may not prefer the rich, even though I never make claims that all do and that those claims are necessary. Some said that rich men don’t want to make kids, even though any males with that kind of choices (emperors) will almost always do that.

Notice that’s not even the problem. Even if women prefer the rich and rich males want many women statement is only 10% true, it should be enough to eliminate poverty if prostitution is legal. My estimate is more like 90%.

Most think that government should change marital laws to be something that’s more fair, not realizing that the issue is not whether the terms are good or not, but who decide.

Many of what I learn is very surprising.

Am I a christian? In a sense that most christian would disagree, I think I am.

For example, I learn that many of what Jesus said is surprisingly right. Faith does move mountain. Check truth riddle number 2 if you don’t believe me. A better proof will be a concept called focal Nash equilibrium. I can explain all that in detail.

Jesus did have good advices. Love your enemies could simply mean being a little merciful and some carefully selected strategic appeasement to them. Of course, he never said to love our enemies and parasites more than we love ourselves, which is what the liberal and christians demand everyone else to do.

Hitler killed jews and hence didn’t have nukes. Then he slaughtered serbs and hence didn’t have grain. Then he lost big and we wonder why racism is the most politically incorrect traits nowadays. The same way, libertarians propose that we should let the poor starve and hence don’t get many votes.

Hitler’s ally, the japs, claimed to be Asian’s “big brother” and pretty much capture the whole south east asia without war. Perhaps a little compassion to others did the trick.

Rather than dropping more bombs to Middle East, why not drop happiness? Drop porn. Drop ecstasy. And the only losers will be that khomeini guy.

However it’s kind of tricky to do so if even in the land of the pee, those 2 are politically incorrect. As Jesus said, we should remove the block in our eyes first before bombing blocks on middle east.

The same demon that turn nazis into exterminators, and muslim youths into suicide bombers is most likely the same one that turn christians in US to prohibit drugs and prostitution. They’re even most likely encoded by the same genes. That kind of demon can only be exorcised with heavy dose of porn or perhaps evolutionary psychology explanations.

Then I learn that the greatest human is Tao and the greatest Tao is just a normal typical human being. That explains why most people have self delusional faith. It works, at least partially, and in many cases. Observing chimps also help understanding our true natures.

After all, humans need to reconcile their false politically correct fairy tales they consciously aware with the politically incorrect but factually proven algorithm their instincts know. Of course they bullshit themselves. What else could they have done?

Dawkins say that that our selfish genes are on the driver seats. Then he extended that idea to memes. By another small extension, our traits are our true self. Just like a country consists of a lot of people, the same way one man consists of a lot of traits and preference.

Just like some country are free market democracy and follow the will of all their people, quite literally, the same way some man listen to their emotion. The latter are more successful.

The idea that traits are “selfish” or a true self is buddhist.

For example, this is a buddhist strategy that would work. Love sinners hate sin. The same way, don’t hate terrorists. Hate their anti freedom traits by dropping more and more porn and we would have killed our true enemies living the innocence intact.

Now that would be a true weapon of moral destruction. Any kind of moral that opposes free fair competition should be destroyed anyway.

So, in a sense, I am an amateur evolutionary psychologists, game theorists, NLPist, christian, taoist, and buddhist.

Am I a satanist? Well, in atheistic sense, I could be. I am closer to deist or agnostic actually. However, who is Satan and who is God is very flexible, if you’re an atheist.

I can start seeing God (=free market?) telling all of us, “Have any consensual sex all you want, just don’t get married. The day you’re married will be the day you’ll die.” Then I see Satan, (=government?) telling, “Didn’t God tell you that all sex are prohibited, except if you exalt me to be the pimp and sign a legally binding life time monogamous government enforced contract where you can lose more than half your wealth?” God never told that!

I see many people are deceived, get married, sign a demonic pact called civil marriage, and ended up paying a lifetime alimony to girls that are already riding someone else’ cock. In a sense, that man is already death the day he’s married.

Doing so is worse than death. Rewarding those that screw you will exterminate not just your life, but all that are like you, your traits, your true self.

That’s hell. They’ll never get out of it. Not unless they went berserk and kill their ex and the judge and the bastard kid or themselves, which will lead them to an even deeper hell. Or they can embrace globalization and escape to another country. Salvation is near thanks to free market, even on those who are in alimony or marital hell.

Prohibitions of a more sensible arrangement like prostitution are simply genocide against capitalists.

It just reminds me of Jesus words: Don’t make a vow (including marital vow) because you don’t even know whether your hair can fall or not, let alone whether your kids will be yours if you’re married, unless you write and study your own marriage contract first. Who does?

Jesus also told us to know the truth, and the truth will set you free. How do we know the truth? Wikileaks is one thing. Paternity test is another. That one should have replaced marriage a long time ago. Porn is another. Just look at what Satan tried to censor and we’ll be on some right path on seeing God’s true plan: abundant free market that brings prosperity to all.

Well, if Jesus is right on some aspects of life, maybe he’s right on others.

“What would Jesus do?” ask most Christian. Very well, on this one aspect I think I am going to follow him.

Legalization of prostitution or drug will be a victory for all capitalists. If those 2 are legal, the most successful variant among humans’ species will be those providing the best service to the most customers. Victory for capitalists will be victory of all men.

If that’s the goal, then porn will be the gospel. Now, spread the gospel, make everyone my disciple (except for my spelling and grammar). If any country would reject that gospel, just leave (but spam their forum anyway). On the day of judgment that country will suffer more than north Korea.

Why Nazi Hates Jews

Jews were actually typically smarter, richer, and more nationalist than typical German.

In a sense, they’re superior, and hence mean superior competitors.

Some jews, like Karl Marx, create communism. That’s not because jews are more evil than anyone else. It’s because they’re the only one smart and creative enough to make a best selling philosophy.

So like it or not, jews, like typical smart people, change the world. You just have to live with it.

Supply is Not Elastic

I understand that many libertarians would curse me when I said about what I think women want.

They’re right. I don’t know. Not only I don’t know, statement about what women want are often used as justification of very anti libertarian agenda. So naturally libertarian hates that statement.

Government, encourage marriage and prohibits prostitution under assumption that marriage is “good” and women want life long legally binding marriage anyway. Libertarian argues that it should still be up to women.

Evolutionary psychology position is that prostitution is preferable to most women and that’s the very reason why it’s prohibited. Moreover, simply giving bigots benefit of doubt like what Libertarians do just won’t cut it.

In the absence of evidences, that’s heavily censored, in area of life politically significant, faith triumph over science. It’s just fact.

But why? Why all the effort to regulate sex?

This is probably the biggest difference between libertarian and non libertarian. Libertarians, especially entrepreneurs, match what they produce with what the market demand. So libertarians do not care what the market actually demands. All they want is honest signal of what the market wants so they can fulfill it.

Does it ever occur to us that most people cannot match what they produce with the market demands?

You have a factory of cement, for example. Then suddenly governments’ embrace globalization. That means your factory will just be junk. You can’t easily change that.

The same goes for beauties. If suddenly we realized the obvious that males want the pretty, can ugly women match the market demand and be prettier?

No. In fact, if there is any pattern in sexual selection is that anything “sexy” is most likely genetic. What we’re buying when we pick a mate are genes. Beauty is in demand precisely because women can’t earn it, at least not easily.

Having a high paying jobs will also have huge genetic correlation. High paying jobs are often high paying precisely because workers can’t easily choose to be able to do it. Otherwise I would have been a heavy weight boxing champ.

Libertarians positions are:
1. What ever 2 consenting parties agree to do, it’s no body else’ business.
2. What people typically want doesn’t matter. What matters are what each individuals want.

I like libertarianism. I must admit that those 2 positions are factually correct in most area. In some area, the 2 positions are simply false.

Areas where those 2 positions are false are area where supply is not very elastic. Those are precisely the area where governments often interfere, though arguably shouldn’t.

In fact, inelasticity of supply is the very justification of most unmeritocratic rules agreed even by some of the most hard core libertarians called objectivist.

“Forced altruism may be justifiable for things beyond their control,” I’ve heard an objectivist say.

“It’s not fair to hold people accountable for things beyond their control,” says others in justifying that a defendant is innocent on ground of insanity.

“People can’t be programmer anyway no matter how high programmer’s salary is,” says my socialist friend.

To which those with the least to offer simply say that things are not within their control. “Every body wants to be rich but well, I am poor here against my will,” says a cradle to grave welfare recipients.

What I mean by not very elastic doesn’t mean it’s totally inelastic. In fact, I am of the opinion that many things we think is inelastic is actually very elastic in a quite unintuitive ways and those unmeritocratic norms will produce whatever typically unmeritocratic norms will do, namely unproductivity.

Those are elastic in politically incorrect way. The way the supply is elastic is outside our box and hence looks inelastic. Heavy anti market regulations, for example, will create demand for corrupt officials. Well, we don’t teach that in school or public success coaching do we?

Imagine what happen in most normal goods. Say demand for fish drops. Then price of fish will drop too. The drop of the price of fish will also drop supply of fish. At the end the price of fish won’t drop that much. In the short time, price will drop. That’s because of the huge sunk cost fish industry has put. At the end it won’t matter match. Price drops but not a lot in the long run.

The same for steel or car factory. Say demand for car suddenly drop due to competition in china. It’ll be just like fish. Except that now the sunk cost is bigger. The number of jobs lost is bigger. The political pressure, something libertarians never take into account, to prohibit car imports will be bigger. That explains why for so many years we do not have globalization.

Most libertarians will simply tell those car industry workers, “Tough.” Yea they can’t change job. It’s easier for them to pressure government to prohibit import then to change them self. Let’s just face it. That’s what they do.

Now what about sexual demand?

Say men prefer the pretty (they do, we do, I know). Say men only pick the pretty. Now, does that affect the ugly?

Libertarian position is:
1. What ever 2 consenting parties agree to do, it’s no body else’ business.

In most products and service it doesn’t. However supply is NOT elastic. Ugly women can’t just be pretty. Men picking the pretty will drop the value of ugly women.

Libertarian position is:
2. What people typically want doesn’t matter. What matters are what each individuals want.

Again, what people typically want matters a lot on supply inelastic goods. That’s because what people typically want decides the market price.

If porn is legal, ugly women will go extinct. I must admit American girls are typically prettier than Indonesian thanks to porn.

Now what about supply inelasticity itself. Didn’t I say that that those are actually elastic?

Take a look at car factories, for example. In short terms, it’s not elastic. They already had a car factory. A sudden price drop means their factory is worthless.

The keyword here is sudden. How sudden? Because if it weren’t sudden, then they could have chosen not to build cars in the first place.

What about poverty? That doesn’t seem to be elastic. We know they can’t afford their babies.

But they can choose not to make them in the first place. Yes but even then is not elastic enough. The need to procreate is stronger than the need to live. Let’s face it. That being said, most women in Asia wouldn’t want to make babies without some financial commitment, while most women in Europe do. Welfare program do encourage breeding among the poor.

However, if those women really want to reproduce can’t they just pick rich smart males first and get say, some financial commitment?

Rich smart males, like any males obviously want as many hot women as possible. No society will ever run out any kind of males. Males are, how can I say it? like sperms. Expendable. I start seeing libertarian bottles flying toward me here.

Expendable unless they’re rich or provide some other values toward the ruling elite/society/whatever. Women always produce some form of value because getting pregnant sucks and hence has high market value. Even women marrying other males provide some values to most males because she takes out a competitor. Not so for women doing it outside marriage.

Men often do not produce any value whatsoever for other males and hence are more likely expendable.

Now, here is another fine point. Women cannot easily pick the rich. Consensual contract to reproduce between adults are heavily regulated against women picking rich smart males.

Prohibition of prostitution is one of them. Lack of right to decide child support commitment before conception is another. Not to mention a price fixed in marriage where women always get half and more unless the males perform some complicated legal maneuver first. That ensures that most rich males are not available on marriage and prohibition of prostitution means they can’t easily commit money otherwise.

So at the end, as we see, unmeritocratic rules, namely welfare program for the poor and prohibition of prostitution for the rich does heavily affect the supply side of poverty. Namely it encourages women to pick the poor and breed poor guys with the same preferences, including voting preferences.

Supply is actually very elastic when it comes to humans’ reproduction. It’s just that the elasticity doesn’t come out of individual direct choices. It comes out of sexual selection choices, which imply extinction of some genes and proliferation of others. That one is just not palatable enough among voters.

How to Preserve Endangered Species

We eat chicken. Is chicken endangered?

We eat pork, beef, and lamb. We eat camels, sheeps, goats, cows, ducks, and pigs are any of those endangered?

What about if we all stop eating chicken. Imagine if we just culture their meat cells? Then chicken will be endangered and environmentalists will be mad again like hell. They’re always mad against capitalists. Think about it.

I’d say we should preserve species by eating them. Let’s preserve turtles by eating turtle soups.

Should Truth Matter?

I got a lot of bitch slap from Mensa community for saying that I want to hire programmers based on IQ.

The high IQ are great programmers. There is no doubt on that. They are lawzy strategists though.

It is toward anyone’s best interest to support the belief that everyone should want the stuff they peddle especially if you can’t change what’s you’re peddling.

Hence, there we go. The ugly says that love is blind. The poor says women want love. The shag less says that women want loyalty. And the low IQ says IQ doesn’t matter.

It make sense for a low IQ to support that belief. For the high IQ to support the same believe that works against them? That’s not a good strategy. That’s the main flaw of most high IQ people and libertarians. Objective.

In fact, anyone of us seeing above normal effort to show one way should quickly feel that the truth is the exact opposite.

Even if it weren’t true, faith moves mountain. Non zero sum games require communications and honest signals. Signals decide which Nash equilibrium that’s focal and that decides reality.

When people believe in something they count on it, they bet on it, they wish it to happen. When enough people wish something happen, it happens. Imagine if everyone believe that VHS is the better system compared to Beta? Irrelevant of what’s true, VHS will be the standard.

Not to mention that we have government with power to criminalize or drive underground any acts that enough people believe to be “bad” and hence pretty much forcing the “good” alternative. Obviously things that truly are good can’t possibly need that much force. For government to came down from heaven invoking some will we should know for sure, the truth is the opposite.

That means, on typical terms, prostitution must be way better than marriage, porn must be way better than burqha, wealth must be way better than love, promiscuity must be way more attractive to women than loyalty, and IQ is a much better predictor of programming skills than degree. .

How do I know? Because something must be so good for it to be illegal in most countries while the other must be so bad that it’s encouraged in most. Otherwise, the market would have taken care of it and government would not have bothered doing their magic.

All right, I admit. It’s not 180 degree. More like 135 degree. For lies to be credible there must be some truth in it. The Nazi can’t just kill all the Jews. Nazi must kill some mentally retarded people first to convince the world that they’re getting rid the inferiors before they kill the Jews. The same way government would prohibit some really bad things first, like Cocaine, to convince the mass that they really mean for your best interest when they prohibit the much safer ecstasy. Government would prohibits some slave prostitution first before prohibiting high class escorts and concubinage, for example.

When we decide what’s best for others, we have very little intensive to be correct. Those little intensive should be overwhelmed by huge intensive to support beliefs and hence, Nash equilibrium that are favorable to us.

Every normal IQ people instinctively follow their feeling on this. The high IQ do not.

High IQ are great programmers. Period. Anything else is a lie. To lie against the interest of ones’ own self is idiotic. Hence, high IQ people are often idiots and hence mess up their life.

Do High IQ People Make Better Strategy?

No.

I know for sure because I am one.

What I often observe is high IQ people arrogantly believe that they are correct even on objects they do not know. Normal IQ people are often equipped with good guides. It could be their peers. It could be their own emotion. Those 2 guides are what high IQ people often do not follow.

High IQ is often smart on so many areas. Because they’re smart on so many ideas they think they’re smart on all areas too even though the don’t study. Then they don’t get rich, they fail to reproduce, and they either keep feeling that they’re somehow successful, or blame the world for being unfair much latter.

What I see again and again is that high IQ people simply follow their own strange idea that’s false. Then they’re wrong and then they blame the world for being unfair, even though they face the misfortune because of their own choosing.

I don’t blame them. They’re right. They’re correct. There is a difference between being correct, happy, and successful. All those are different things.

Like every losers, it’s so easy to let our creativity works against our success. Rather than blaming our own action which we could have changed, we can easily claim that we are morally superior rather than strategically messed up. And the higher the IQ, the easier it is for them to do this, till they realized and accept that they really are wrong.

Truth is often complicated. And facts where we can deduce truth are often hidden, replaced by lies. Those lies are often what high IQ people used as guidance for their reasoning, often toward catastrophic result.

This may not sound as weird as it seems.

I’ll give you an example.

Recently I’ve heard some guy put $400k money in Century bank. The Century bank went bankrupt on one of the biggest bank scandal in Indonesia. He lost his deposits, and I’ve heard many commit suicide.

To add the insult, to avoid guaranteeing the depositors, government pay up some safety fund that goes to some thieves. I think it goes around $600 billion. It’s a crisis of the century.

People complain about paying our officials high salary

Any employers should know that the true cost of hiring people should include the cost catastrophic mistakes they make. Not to mention how many of those “mistakes” do not hurt and can often be profitable for those making it.

What we know:
Depositing money in bank is safe. We in fact swallow lower interests in exchange of that safety.

The truth is:
Depositing money in a bank is very unsafe. Nothing is safe except our own understanding.

Ah.. but the fairy tales is guarded by layers and layers of lies. Don’t we have a government guarantee for those deposited funds.

No. What happen is after the fact is happening, the government argues that due to Century’s higher interest rate, the deposits shouldn’t count as deposits and hence shouldn’t be guaranteed.

Make sense? No. Of course not. Is this what those depositors have in mind when they deposited their money. No. Obviously no.

Okay, what can we learn here:
1. World is unfair.
2. Justification for world affairs often doesn’t make sense.

Tough.

That’s reality.

If you ask David Copperfield, how the hell he made Liberty Statue disappear, he too would say something that doesn’t make sense. He would say, “Ah, I teleported the statue somewhere else, then I build a new one in a blink of an eye.”

Of course that doesn’t make sense. The same goes for religions, morality, our sense of justice, our politically correct reason to prohibit prostitution, etc. None of those make sense. How the hell on one hand we have freedom of religion and on the other hand some guy demand many goes to jail for offending religious moral? Those justifications don’t make sense. They never are.

Because they’re not true.

However a high IQ people will simply follow his logic and follow their understanding based on those false assumptions. “How could, I have known,” they said, “Government clearly stated that they will guarantee deposits. Now this totally doesn’t make sense justification. Everyone else is an idiot and I suffer.”

It’s true they’re wrong. They’re not an idiot though. They are wrong strategically, at your expense.

To understand something that makes sense, you need a correct theory based on truth in a sense of what’s really going on. That theory is based on a more correct assumption and those assumptions are hidden.

Here is a correct theory. Any powerful entities do not need justice and honor to persuade the population to submit to their will. They need only illusion of justice and honor.

Often, being truly honorable is costly. Just like honoring commitment to guarantee deposited funds. However, not maintaining illusion of honor will also be costly because government wants you to put your money on Indonesian banks. So everybody, including all of us, sort of want to have the cake and eat it too. Why not?

And hence, a fairy tales need to be invented to justify acting dishonorably without losing a lot of reputation.

The majority of the population is not very smart to see the problem, and to be frank, they’re not really interested. It’s not their problem. They don’t have $400k to be stored somewhere. Often they’re benefited by the problem.

So it is natural then to understand that storing money in a bank is actually very risky. It is also very understandable to see that government will not pay and will simply find a reason not to pay.

The problem is, do you need to lose your whole life time earning first before you know that?

Were you smart enough, you would probably have joined the corruptions and earn huge. Again, it’s just facts.

Facts, that normal IQ people know. High IQ people often have high paying occupations (or think that they will get one) in private sectors they do not even look for opportunities there. Till it’s too late. Then they cry unfair.

Do we need to be evil to be successful? No. However in unfair countries that defy meritocracy and free market, yes. That’s virtually all countries on some aspects. As sure as I know that there is no way you can be a millionaire productively or honestly if you’re born in North Korea, I can tell you this. Part of you, just got to screw somebody up so you can get ahead.

By the way, the statement above works at least in a sense. In a sense, that’s actually a theorem.

Even if the world is fair, normal IQ people can still outperform high IQ people. They stick on one thing they do it well. That’s it.

If you really want to use your rational mind, please at least use correct theory. That means learning a LOT. Truth is not simple and often hidden. The simpler truth where we can derive a lot of facts are well hidden when it comes to those what truly matter. If you don’t learn, you’re in a great danger of making major mistakes.

Even Zhuge Liang, known as the smartest guy in the world, is rumored to have an ugly wife. So what has he truly achieved really?

Speaking of girls, I remember how I ignored an advice that women prefer the rich. I simply thought it was wrong. Then I made major mistakes in my life. Then I know I am the one that’s wrong. Then I ended up writing a book, http://genepoolsurvivalguide.com so others do not make the same mistakes. Guess what, the book don’t sale. No body believes me.

At the end, rational people often lose, and they understandably cry that life is unfair because it is. If only I can help them realizing it earlier I could have helped a lot of people. But they’re smart. They won’t listen to me. Then what? I can’t save them.

The path to salvation don’t change much across millennia. We would expect that we got that hard wired in our emotion, if only we listen.

The same way, normal people do make better strategies based on those proven hard wired preferences.

For programmer though, hire a high IQ. This is something not even high IQ people would agree, but many normal IQ people that have worked with lots of programmers would obviously know.

There is No Ghost There, But There is Something Else There

I still remember a story my teacher told me when I was young.

2 white guys come to a mountain. The villagers said that the mountain is haunted by ghosts. The villagers tried, unsuccessfully, to prevent the tourists from going up the mountain. The tourists went up, never to be heard from again. Or quite like that.

I supposed some high tech embassy start getting involved. Scientists then examine the mountain.

They didn’t find any ghosts. However, they did find that the scientists are death, due to gas poisoning.

There isn’t a ghost there. But there was something there.

That taught us something about faith and religions in general.

It’s most likely untrue. Still, there is something there. But what?

Also notice that the villagers have low tech. Poisoning gas concept is just beyond their capability to grasp. They did the best they can with the understanding that they have to do their best. It’s hard to blame the villagers. After all, the smart tourists are the one insisting going up.

Things can be quite benign. Rules for not stealing for example.

If we study game theory, we will see that working and stealing is like a prisoner dilemma game. If it’s up to the market, everybody would steal. Well, free market is not really that weak actually. However, let’s ignore that for a while.

So a natural arrangement is then to punish cheaters. Now being productive is more profitable than stealing and people tend to be more productive.

That’s not all. Moral structures that “work” will out perform moral structures that don’t work. That’s why free market rules tend to spread and dominate most cultures.

That being said, many ancient, norms and mores that are based on nonsense do deserve some credits. People may believe them out of faith, or fear, or whatever. Still there is something there. There is a reason why those norms are popular. Namely those are the norms that work.

So what should we do?
1. There is something there so we should believe it anyway
2. There is something there but we better understand what is it first and then reinvent the wheel

Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. Notice that most people really do not have an option beyond 1.

The advantage of approach 1 is that we build on what used to work in the past. Then we conjectures that what used to work in the past sort of work now.

These has 2 problems.

1. Due to technological changes, what’s optimum in the past is not what optimum is now.
2. Even when they are actually similar, people often have various intensive to persuade societies from performing the optimum solution. Hence, the mass basically follow what they think to be what’s working in the past.

It’s easy to see samples of these 2 issues. In ancient time, there is no way to know whose the father of a child is. Hence, marriage is important. Nowadays, with DNA testing, we no longer need marriage for that purpose.

In ancient time, humans are poorer. Hence, relative fear induced by death penalty, as opposed to fine, for example, are lower in ancient time.

In ancient time, if I were fined $1 million dollar, for example, I would ended up being slave, and then get tortured to death at the whim of my owner.

So, stoning a woman to death for adultery is a more proportional deterrence in ancient time. Such women steal inheritance from her husband by begetting kids that’s not his.

Nowadays, it’s still happen, but not because of our lack of knowledge of fatherhood. Now it happens because our social structure simply “emulate” the problem by requiring father of cuckold husband to pay up anyway even though it’s obviously not his biological children.

And finally, religions compel us to follow the whim of religious interpreters. There is nothing in the bible that says that women deserve half.

However, most religious bigots demand that you get married first before having sex. Getting married means you legally agree to pay half. So religious bigots effectively want you to agree to something bible never tells you to.

Reinventing the wheel also has problems.

As I said. Following the ancient norms is pretty much the only option for many. When we reinvent the wheel, we may be wrong. If we follow the ancient norms, we may be wrong too, but at least we can’t get too wrong.

Communism is one such experiment where some guy just reinvent the norms by getting rid poverty right.

Any Han Chinese that wonder, how the hell western civilization can exceed them for all these years need only to look at communism to blame.

Humans evolve slowly. What used to work now, are not far from what used to work before. We should change. But slowly.

Should We Excuse People For Traits Beyond His Control?

Though not direct, traits we think are beyond their control are actually still results of choices. If not their choices, their parent choices. Just like I wouldn’t want to work hard if I can’t inherit my wealth to my children, it make sense to reward children then out of their parent’s contribution.

Conversely, it make sense to see that some children are under privileged due to his parents’ lack of contribution. Having it any other way will reduce parent’s motivation to contribute to the economy and making wise choices.

Simple meritocratic principles rewarding people based and strictly based on merit will maximize productivity as a whole without exception.

When we excuse people for having a negative trait because we think it’s beyond their control, we start persuading people, if not compelling them to fail. The truth is it’s still in their control or in their parents’ control.

Think it this way. Welfare program for example. Most Asian girls would not have free sex without some form of financial commitment. Asian girls avoid the poor. They know that they and their children will have to fully pay for their choice of picking a poor male. Most european girls do not have that problem because their government pay up for all expense anyway.

If women are picking financially unproductive males, while financially productive males are enslaved by life time alimony, what messages that will send to all males?

Here, welfare program not only take money away from the productive, but also take women away from the productive. Combined with heavy control of marriage, government effectively do more than just increasing or persuading more poverty. Government actually forcefully create it.

As for those who complain that IQ is not a result of choice, well, let’s put it this way. Why doesn’t his/her mom pick a mensacock? Just kidding. But well, all traits are results of choices and free market will take care of them all. People do not have high IQ because their parents choose path of ignorance. They do not want to know. Not knowing means less thinking and can mean more result. And hence, higher IQ doesn’t serve them. It’s as if they choose to have lower IQ, just like I often choose to ignore many aspects of life that’s not my thing anyway.

As for those who complain that those who are born poor don’t choose to be born that way, well let’s put it this way. If women prefer the rich, how can there be any kids with poor dad. Well, another huge topic.

Again and again, deviation from normal meritocratic norm is the culprit of all traits we tolerate because we think it’s not caused by choices.