Ever notice that it’s almost 100% always a woman replying like Person B does here, and almost never a man?:
Person A: “Group X does more of bad thing Y, and so you can expect more of group X to be punished for it”
Person B: “But I am in group X and don’t do Y, so your statement that group does more of bad thing Y isn’t true”
E.g. you practically never see:
Person A: “Men are more murderous than women, so you can expect more men to be jailed for mudred”
Person B: “But I’m a man and I don’t murder, so more men shouldn’t be in jail for murder”
Never see that from men.
Why is it overwhelmingly women who have this style of argument?
Difference in competitive style.
= WOMEN ACTUALLY DO “GENERALIZE” IN THE SENSE OF THE BAD VERSION OF GENERALIZE, FAR MORE THAN MEN
I.e.
Women DO have a vastly stronger tendency to judge ALL members of a group by the group’s general traits.
Why?
= Women’s general tendency toward group-level stigmatization and ostracization competition style, versus mens’ tendency toward direct individual-level competition.
I.e. evaluating everything in terms of is this person in my “in-group” or are they in my “out-group”, instead of thinking about is it true.
Can see it everywhere.
Women frequenty saying, and actually acting upon, hard preferences like these, which you’ll virtually never hear from men:
“I would never date a writer”
“I would never date an engineer”
For quite innoculous group types.
= Literally judging ALL members of a group based on some group, based group tendencies.
Contrast with men:
“I prefer huge boobs” — and then bro immediately goes and happily dates a woman with zero boobs because he likes how she smiles at her. Men extremely willing to give people in the “bad group” a chance, and immediately make huge exceptions. Much more individual-level thinking. Much less in-group vs out-group thinking.
Women tend to ACTUALLY BELIEVE that whenever you talk about group-level tendencies, that it means ALL PEOPLE IN THAT GROUP.
= Projection.
Those women who do this are projecting their own thinking behavior onto everyone else, saying everyone else is unable to think in any other way, just like them.
= Those who accuse others of “generalizing”, in the sense of that if you say anything about a group that it applies to ALL members of the group, are telling on themselves.
And the reason they do that is because of a strong preference of women toward group-level thinking, instead of individual-level thinking, in contrast to how men think much more at the individual-level instead of group-level.
Women who harshly judge ALL in a group based on their group, instead of individually — Be better, stop projecting your bad habit, of making extreme judgements about individuals based on their their group, onto others.
= Why the “Not ALL X” meme exists. People accusing you of thinking like that, because that is how they truly think.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Person A: “Group X does more of bad thing Y, and so you can expect more of group X to be punished for it”
Person B: “But I am in group X and don’t do Y, so your statement that group does more of bad thing Y isn’t true”
E.g. you practically never see:
Person A: “Men are more murderous than women, so you can expect more men to be jailed for mudred”
Person B: “But I’m a man and I don’t murder, so more men shouldn’t be in jail for murder”
Never see that from men.
Why is it overwhelmingly women who have this style of argument?
Difference in competitive style.
= WOMEN ACTUALLY DO “GENERALIZE” IN THE SENSE OF THE BAD VERSION OF GENERALIZE, FAR MORE THAN MEN
I.e.
Women DO have a vastly stronger tendency to judge ALL members of a group by the group’s general traits.
Why?
= Women’s general tendency toward group-level stigmatization and ostracization competition style, versus mens’ tendency toward direct individual-level competition.
I.e. evaluating everything in terms of is this person in my “in-group” or are they in my “out-group”, instead of thinking about is it true.
Can see it everywhere.
Women frequenty saying, and actually acting upon, hard preferences like these, which you’ll virtually never hear from men:
“I would never date a writer”
“I would never date an engineer”
For quite innoculous group types.
= Literally judging ALL members of a group based on some group, based group tendencies.
Contrast with men:
“I prefer huge boobs” — and then bro immediately goes and happily dates a woman with zero boobs because he likes how she smiles at her. Men extremely willing to give people in the “bad group” a chance, and immediately make huge exceptions. Much more individual-level thinking. Much less in-group vs out-group thinking.
Women tend to ACTUALLY BELIEVE that whenever you talk about group-level tendencies, that it means ALL PEOPLE IN THAT GROUP.
= Projection.
Those women who do this are projecting their own thinking behavior onto everyone else, saying everyone else is unable to think in any other way, just like them.
= Those who accuse others of “generalizing”, in the sense of that if you say anything about a group that it applies to ALL members of the group, are telling on themselves.
And the reason they do that is because of a strong preference of women toward group-level thinking, instead of individual-level thinking, in contrast to how men think much more at the individual-level instead of group-level.
Women who harshly judge ALL in a group based on their group, instead of individually — Be better, stop projecting your bad habit, of making extreme judgements about individuals based on their their group, onto others.
= Why the “Not ALL X” meme exists. People accusing you of thinking like that, because that is how they truly think.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯2
Btw, when did the Cambridge dictionary redefine “generalize”,
into the completely insane definition they have on the site today,
— meaning that if you ever talk about any group-level tendencies then you must be talking about ALL members of the group?
Looks like somewhere around 2022, prior to which it was a much more sane definition, according to the internet archive…
Word redefining attacks just keep rising.
(And btw the vast majority of the top dictionaries that come up on google still do NOT include this insane definition, but rather definitions that say the total opposite, that “in general” absolutely does not mean “all”.)
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
into the completely insane definition they have on the site today,
— meaning that if you ever talk about any group-level tendencies then you must be talking about ALL members of the group?
Looks like somewhere around 2022, prior to which it was a much more sane definition, according to the internet archive…
Word redefining attacks just keep rising.
(And btw the vast majority of the top dictionaries that come up on google still do NOT include this insane definition, but rather definitions that say the total opposite, that “in general” absolutely does not mean “all”.)
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
👀3👏1💯1
Them: “Men and women are equally happy being alone”
Man’s wife gets terminal illness.
Man: “Kill me now too, I can’t bear going on living without her”
Countless identical cases, look up the stats on couple suicides.
Ladies who say men as a group are just as happy being without a partner as women tend to be,
- You are so wrong it’s insane.
Women ARE overwhelmingly more wired to run from romantic relationships, be more content with being single, with relatively rare exception.
You may not like it, but ask yourself,
“is it true?”
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Man’s wife gets terminal illness.
Man: “Kill me now too, I can’t bear going on living without her”
Countless identical cases, look up the stats on couple suicides.
Ladies who say men as a group are just as happy being without a partner as women tend to be,
- You are so wrong it’s insane.
Women ARE overwhelmingly more wired to run from romantic relationships, be more content with being single, with relatively rare exception.
You may not like it, but ask yourself,
“is it true?”
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯7
Precisely,
Huge social or financial pressure — from parents or society or wherever — needed to convince women to keep dating.
Meanwhile,
Huge social or financial pressure — from MTGOW or divorce courts or wherever — needed to convince men NOT to keep dating.
Not all, but overwhelmingly.
Wild to even try to argue that it’s not true of the 2 groups… which countless people try to do anyway.
Women are, overwhelmingly, wired to run.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Huge social or financial pressure — from parents or society or wherever — needed to convince women to keep dating.
Meanwhile,
Huge social or financial pressure — from MTGOW or divorce courts or wherever — needed to convince men NOT to keep dating.
Not all, but overwhelmingly.
Wild to even try to argue that it’s not true of the 2 groups… which countless people try to do anyway.
Women are, overwhelmingly, wired to run.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
👏4🤮1💯1😐1
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
“Taking a sick day as an adult should be pretty embarrassing for you”
My take:
If there is zero possibility for you to create net-negative value destruction at your job, if you try working when in you’re in bad shape,
Such that it’s sometimes better to stay home rather than destroy something due to your deteriorated state,
Then you’re either horrible at your job, or your job is a fake joke.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
My take:
If there is zero possibility for you to create net-negative value destruction at your job, if you try working when in you’re in bad shape,
Such that it’s sometimes better to stay home rather than destroy something due to your deteriorated state,
Then you’re either horrible at your job, or your job is a fake joke.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯9🖕3
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Long march of the left
Eliminating usefulness of all credentials, even the weak ones
Eliminating all standardized testing
Helping to install themselves into all positions of power
Their issue is never the issue.
Their issue is always their communist revolution.
Deeper into the darkness we go.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Eliminating usefulness of all credentials, even the weak ones
Eliminating all standardized testing
Helping to install themselves into all positions of power
Their issue is never the issue.
Their issue is always their communist revolution.
Deeper into the darkness we go.
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
🤬6💯4
While we’re at it,
Would bet that the scientifically-observed white ingroup-hating bias
— is caused by the EXACT SAME underlying predisposition which caused mostly “white” races to disproportionately and voluntarily take on the near-suicide mission of getting on death-trap boats, even when they’re perfectly comfortable at home, a “need to explore”
= Both ingroup-hating and the need to explore both being manifestations of the same underlying behavioral predisposition, manifesting in a variety of ways.
NOT saying that either ingroup nor outgroup bias is universally superior in all situations. Clearly each superior to the other in certain situations.
— Neither strictly dominates, in all environments.
And remember, environment always can change back and forth repeatedly, making previously detrimental predispositions the more adventageous ones again.
= Why it makes sense to maintain at least some biological diversity DISTRIBUTION, not collapse all diversity into a SINGLE best behavior for the current environment
— because never know when the environment might shift back again, and these shifts happpen FAR quicker than genes could adapt on the fly.
= Optimal solution here is not a SINGLE solution, but rather some non-uniform DISTRIBUTION of solutions
Game theoretically, smart move is to NOT try to totally collapse and eliminate all biological diversity, at the population level.
Left pretends to embrace “diversity”, but clearly they lie.
Biological diversity is real, and in certain senses good actually.
So why does the left reject biological diversity, even in cases where it could clearly be shown to be good?
— Because their issue is never the issue.
Their issue is always their communist revolution.
(Not best to judge individuals by their group instead of as individuals, but also right to say that all groups are identical.)
(Not to say that some behavioral groups cannot strictly dominate other groups in certain environments, which also obviously isn’t true.)
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
Would bet that the scientifically-observed white ingroup-hating bias
— is caused by the EXACT SAME underlying predisposition which caused mostly “white” races to disproportionately and voluntarily take on the near-suicide mission of getting on death-trap boats, even when they’re perfectly comfortable at home, a “need to explore”
= Both ingroup-hating and the need to explore both being manifestations of the same underlying behavioral predisposition, manifesting in a variety of ways.
NOT saying that either ingroup nor outgroup bias is universally superior in all situations. Clearly each superior to the other in certain situations.
— Neither strictly dominates, in all environments.
And remember, environment always can change back and forth repeatedly, making previously detrimental predispositions the more adventageous ones again.
= Why it makes sense to maintain at least some biological diversity DISTRIBUTION, not collapse all diversity into a SINGLE best behavior for the current environment
— because never know when the environment might shift back again, and these shifts happpen FAR quicker than genes could adapt on the fly.
= Optimal solution here is not a SINGLE solution, but rather some non-uniform DISTRIBUTION of solutions
Game theoretically, smart move is to NOT try to totally collapse and eliminate all biological diversity, at the population level.
Left pretends to embrace “diversity”, but clearly they lie.
Biological diversity is real, and in certain senses good actually.
So why does the left reject biological diversity, even in cases where it could clearly be shown to be good?
— Because their issue is never the issue.
Their issue is always their communist revolution.
(Not best to judge individuals by their group instead of as individuals, but also right to say that all groups are identical.)
(Not to say that some behavioral groups cannot strictly dominate other groups in certain environments, which also obviously isn’t true.)
🄳🄾🄾🄼🄿🄾🅂🅃🄸🄽🄶
💯7👀1