Meandering thoughts on Christianity

What is the purpose and meaning of life? “Life” is defined here as DNA, particularly, and the creator of life/DNA may not be the same as the creator of the universe in general. Secular people who understand the improbability of life tend to ascribe it to ancient aliens, whereas pagans and Christians ascribe it to God, gods, etc. My best guess is that it’s Jesus, so I’ll proceed with that assumption in mind.

There are two very distinct questions here because purpose and meaning are different things. A hammer has a very definite purpose, as defined by the person who created it. The creator was answering a question of “how” to pound something more effectively. So the purpose of something is the problem that it was created to solve. The meaning of a hammer is more contextual. If we find a fossilized hammer in a European cave, that means one thing. If we find a bloody hammer at the scene of a murder, that means another thing. So the meaning of something is what it tells us about the mind that was solving the problem.

Insofar as I can tell, the purpose of life is to worship the creator of the universe. The Old Testament appears to be primarily the history of a eugenic program by the creator of DNA, probably with the intention of raising intelligence and consciousness to serve that purpose of worshiping. There is also a great deal about morality as regards things like cleanliness, dirtiness, and sanctity. These concepts are integral to our human sense of morality. It’s like debt, except that I believe worship/disgust—where sin is considered as analogous to dirtiness—is a true moral axis (in the sense of divine command morality) whereas debt/fairness is a false moral axis (in the sense of being an evolutionary artifact). It appears that Jesus’ purpose in making DNA-based consciousnesses more holy is to make worship of the universe’s creator possible. It’s like we’re going through decontamination processes before going into a clean room. So, the meaning of life is Jesus’ love for his father, which compels him to go to such great lengths. This is what Christians refer to as the Truth, upper-case T.

Disgust is repulsion, a desire to disassociate ourselves from something. It’s a reaction to flaws and corruption. Worship is the opposite reaction, an attraction to perfection. I’ll define those things that tend to attract worship as “charismatic”. These are very fundamental feelings because they rely on the most basic sort of cognition: simple association. Disgusting things are perceived as “low” and charismatic things as “high”, and we want to be around “good” things and away from “bad” things.

Idealism is an aesthetic fixation to an idea or set of ideas that feels good. (Recall that aestheticism is the nonverbal expression of ideas.) People who tend to have fixations of other sorts—whether sexual, sensual, or otherwise— are likely to be idealistic also. Particularly interesting to readers of this blog, idealism is a necessary but not sufficient component of genius. Idealists with analytical personalities become idealogues who produce lengthy post-facto rationalizations justifying the counterfactuals supplied by their aestheticism. Idealists with holistic personalities become artists, and produce large bodies of work having some essential element of sensation in common. The rare individuals who are highly capable in both sorts of cognition can become geniuses.

Ideology, art, and genius are necessary for the evolution and transmission of culture but they are not sufficient for a religion. Humans are social animals who desire the company of other humans a priori. It follows that a charismatic ideal must be a person. This is what separates secular ideology from proper religions like Christianity or Zodiacism: religions acknowledge the personality endemic to idealism, whereas secularism tries to maintain the charisma of ideas without the personality. Ideas are fun because they give us the power to solve problems, but they are ultimately sterile.

Last thought for the day, completely out of left field…

Personally, I don’t find the Bible-based arguments in favor of Trinitarianism very compelling. However, I believe that humans were made in God’s image and I also believe we have three aspects: id, ego, and superego. It follows that God would have three aspects, or else there must be some other reason that we have them.

Posted in Uncategorized | 33 Comments

Thoughts on human systems

Starting out with a couple of definitions: A function is something that transforms an input into an output. A system is a functional network. A human function is a behavior that (semi-reliably) transforms a stimulus into a range of outcomes, represented by a random variable. A human system is a network of human functions.

All long-term human institutions have (at least) three causal factors: the exoteric reasons, the esoteric reasons, and the functional reasons. In more down-to-earth terms that’s the reasons people say out loud, their internal motivations, and the real reasons, respectively.

For example: white flight. The reason people say out loud is they want to move somewhere with good schools (for der chiiillren). Their internal motivation, whether they’re honest with themselves or not, is to move to where lots of other white people are and minorities aren’t. The functional reason for this is part of the great circle of life: white people make nice things, nice things attract minorities, minorities make nice things less nice, white people regroup elsewhere.

For example two: centralized schooling. The reason people say out loud is that every child deserves an education (read: every child deserves to be upper-middle class). The real individual motivation is that 95% of parents can’t be bothered to raise their own children, and it’s easier to outlaw homeschooling and other alternatives so that badwhites don’t get a leg up on their offspring. The functional reason is to brainwash children into statolotry, which makes them amenable to post-industrial peonage.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Judging trustworthiness

Trust is one of the most important interpersonal concepts there is and analysis is fun. Therefore this post. Analogous to Eysenck’s breakdown of personality traits, I use the following analysis to help me feel out whether I trust a person:

Do I trust this person’s competence? (analogous to intelligence)
Do I trust their judgment? (psychoticism)
Do I trust their character? (conscientiousness)

Competence is, roughly speaking, my judgment of whether someone can actually accomplish their job. This capability breaks down further into training, experience, and talent. Generally, you need to check at least two of those boxes to get any real work done. This is mostly specific to the task.

Judgment is more difficult to describe, but I’ll give it a shot. This is our latent ability to sense the factors involved in a decision, weight them properly by salience and appropriateness, and to be self-conscious of how our biases and neuroses permeate our perceptions. I’ll call these discernment, maturity, and detachment, respectively. Again, you want to check at least two boxes out of three. (The latter is the most rare because it’s a sort of relaxed Zen solipsism mixed with Western empiricism that is difficult to reproduce.) These are all skills that can be improved with focus and practice but unfortunately our culture is biased against treating them as such (preferring to passively breed them out), so of the three overarching traits judgment is the least common and the strongest determinant of success.

Character is almost the same thing as conscientiousness, except it also matters how they feel about me (or our common group identity). There are three possible predispositions: friend, ally, and enemy. A friend can be trusted to hold an interest in my well-being and prefer mutually beneficial ends, an enemy can be trusted to hold an “interest” in my downfall and prefer mutually destructive ends, and an ally can be trusted to prefer maximum personal benefit irrespective of my outcome. There are a number of reasons a person might fall into each of these groups, whether nature, nurture, or our interpersonal history. Allies are the most common because most people don’t give a shit about you or your identity group. These are people you can do business with but who might rob you if they can get away with it.

Allies can be divided into three groups, according to the sort of social reciprocity they practice. These fall into three more camps: delayed, ideal, and predatory. The most common sort is delayed because this is the most primitive and emotional. If you do nice things for a normal person, they’ll eventually begin to like you and do things for you in return. But…because emotions are primitive and selfish, you’ll never get as much back as you put in. Ideal reciprocity is purposeful equivalent exchange—tit for tat. This attitude is like libertarianism: it’s ideologically driven and requires conscientiousness and dedication to realize, and it’s typically practiced by the same sorts of people. The predatory type is concerned with hacking more socially primitive people and exploiting their sense of social reciprocity for material gain. An easy example is the practice of giving gifts and bribes to people in order to sell something to their government or corporation.

So character can be broken down into predisposition and conscientiousness, and conscientiousness can be further broken down into focus and energy (as mentioned in previous posts).

To sum up:

Is this person trustworthy?

  1. Do I trust this person’s competence?
    1. Do they have the right training?
    2. Do they have enough experience?
    3. Are they naturally talented?
  2. Do I trust their judgment?
    1. Are they discerning?
    2. Are they mature?
    3. Are they detached?
  3. Do I trust their character?
    1. Is this person a friend, enemy, or ally?
    2. If they’re an ally, is this person neurotypical, aspergoid, or psychopathic?
    3. Are they reliable?
      1. Are they focused?
      2. Are they energetic?

There’s a sort of economic leveling effect involved when we prefer the company of trustworthy people, because everyone prefers the company of trustworthy people. Untrustworthy people are especially attracted to them. You can’t just up and decide to only associate with trustworthy people because trust is a form of capital—and anything with that kinda value is gonna cost you. This means that the most trustworthy people have to keep their circles of friends the tightest and be the most discriminating about who they spend their time, money, and talents on. The efficient strategy is to use this analysis to more precisely understand how people are trustworthy or untrustworthy, in which ways, and then lean on people who are underappreciated while hedging against risks.

Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments

Mechanics of political sentiment

For brevity I’ll use the term “expected resource share/status” to refer to the idea of resource distribution via struggle between political identity classes. If your status increases then your expected resource share almost always increases with it, so I’ll be using them interchangeably.

Sad = Loss (of expected resource share/status)
Happy = Increase
Anger = Desire to decrease someone else’s ERSS
Disgust = Recognition of relative superiority
Fear = Desire to avoid loss
Surprise = ? (Haven’t figured this yet)

Update: Koanic explains, “Surprise is unanticipated significant movement in ERSS distribution and its derivatives.”

(You’ll note these are all concerned with changing states. When I have a better idea of the inner workings of these I’ll try to translate them into differential equations.)

These combine into more complex emotional reactions. Some starter examples:

Pity = Sad * Disgust
Humor = Surprise * Disgust

There are some weird epiphenomena that can probably be drawn from this sort of analysis. For instance, psychopaths can’t feel sadness, and therefore can’t feel pity.

Update 2: More combos,

Smugness = Disgust * Happy
Contempt = Disgust * Anger
Horror = Disgust * Fear

Disgust is particularly interesting because it’s the differentiator between right and left-wing political groups. The right wing prefers stratifiers, whereas the left wing prefers to tear down existing resource preference structures (K-strategy) in favor of prolific breeding (R-strategy).

Bittersweet = Happy * Sad (loss of one thing, gain of another thing, transformation)

Surprise combos:

Surprise * Fear = Terror
Surprise * Happy = Elation (WINNING)
Surprise * Sad = Torn-up, stricken (feels like being sucker-punched in the gut)
Surprise * Disgust = Humor
Surprise * Anger = Outrage

Final thought is about feigned emotions. This is when a person or group wants to misrepresent their sociopolitical position in some way, so they try to gaslight the other actors in the system. The easiest example is when Gammas feign humor: “I’m surprised to learn that I’m better than you”. Another is feigned outrage

Posted in Uncategorized | 16 Comments

It was cold

I wasn’t sure if I was going to make it. Then I remembered I got this dick. That’s when I knew I was gonna make it big. Tell your boys, tell everybody.

So. Been working 70-hour weeks. It’s not particularly hard work but it really cuts into my genie time, so I’ma cut back a little and also reset expectations. We’re probably looking at three posts per week until mid-June. I’m also supposed to be moderating a forum that I haven’t even looked at in two weeks, so Koanic may find it necessary to promote some of the kids into grown-ass niggers.

That’s all for now. Enjoy the unofficial national holiday, and root for the Patriots so’s to trigger all the libtards. Remember, a win for Brady is a win for Trump’s America.


The salt must flow.

Posted in Uncategorized | 20 Comments

Rhetoric depends on insecurities (and misc.)

Rhetoric only works when it plays on people’s emotional insecurities. For instance, a griefer in one of Vox’s Periscopes said “Stop acting like you’ve read more than ten books”. The author of that rhetoric was assuming this would play on either Vox’s insecurities (about his intelligence) or his audience’s (about their own intelligence, or their confidence in Vox’s intelligence).

The reason “You have to go home” and “You have to go back” work so well as rhetoric against civic parasites is that they play on a parasite’s most fundamental fear: being removed from the host. Parasites without hosts have no future.

If you want to devise similarly effective rhetoric, you have to find similar insecurities. With leftists, these typically revolve around low reproductive fitness. With rightists, these typically revolve around being alone and outnumbered. The only people who don’t have insecurities are A) those with nothing to lose, or B) those with dependable, dangerous men on-call to do serious violence on a moment’s notice, or a profitable combination of the two. This is just the rule of nature applied to humans as political animals.

The rule “SJWs always project” comes from two attributes of SJWs: 1) they are solipsistic and thus believe other people have exactly the same insecurities as they do, and 2) they want to trigger other people’s insecurities with rhetoric. This leads to them attacking others in the ways that would be most effective for others to attack them.

Last, remember the rule of levels: never engage at a higher level than the other guy (or gal). Dialectic is for searchers exploring their ideas for mutual benefit. Pseudo-dialectic is for civic parasites posturing as intellectuals (NB: emotional insecurity detected!). Rhetoric is for political animals vying for common resources. Last, violence is for people who have no capital (including social capital) to lose by it. The political violence we’re going to see this year is the left’s reaction to their loss of capital.

Posted in Uncategorized | 46 Comments

Thoughts regarding face-blindness in Asperger’s

I used to be a very poor face reader, perhaps somewhere in the bottom decile. I am now approximately one standard deviation above average, and this is probably due to (in the following order) 1. practice reading faces according to Koanic’s theories, 2. learning Game principles from Heartiste and r/K from Anonymous Conservative, 3. reading popsci books about body language and facial expressions, and 4. developing several theories of my own in these areas. Even if all these theories are complete bullshit, there has been an objective benefit to obsessive engagement with them. My overall social intelligence has increased from a level suggesting retardation to a level significantly above average. My qualitative assessment of my own abilities puts me at about the 80th percentile, due to the conjunction of newfound instincts (like face-reading) with a deep intellectual understanding of social dynamics.

I used to have great difficulty distinguishing between certain types of faces, to such an extent that I would confuse new acquaintances with each other and even forget that I’d previously met them. Recently, Lorien posted a test for this skill and I scored a 63, approximately one standard deviation above average (according to the testing site, “better than 7 out of 10”). This was after about five years of practicing edenic face-reading.

I also used to be very bad at reading emotions from faces. In high school, I did one of those eye-reading social intelligence tests as a freshman in high school and got a flat zero. I only answered two questions out of 25 and got them both wrong (mistaking “contempt” for “happy” and mistaking “pity” for “sad”). I just took another such test and scored 28/36, putting me in the 64th percentile.

Similarly, Polymath did an informal experiment to explore whether Altrugenics posters or Apricity posters were better at guessing which morphs corresponded to which professions. Though the sample size was small, it suggested that face-reading practitioners (Altrugenics) were better at this task.

I believe we’re looking at a situation similar to the development of language in humans. Psychologists and neurologists take it as given, generally, that all humans develop the ability to understand spoken language without any formal training, at about the same age. This is a normal part of early development, assuming the child is not somehow prevented from listening to other humans speaking. This is not true for reading and writing, which generally need to be taught. If a person isn’t taught to read and write, they aren’t going to pick it up instinctually*.

Adding to this commonsense understanding, there was a very interesting experiment accidentally performed in Nicaragua:

Before the 1970s, there was no deaf community in Nicaragua. Deaf people were largely isolated from each other and mostly used simple home sign systems and gesture (‘mímicas’) to communicate with their families and friends, though there were several cases of idioglossia among deaf siblings.[3] The conditions necessary for a language to arise occurred in 1977, when a center for special education established a program initially attended by 50 deaf children. The number of students at the school (in the Managua neighborhood of San Judas) grew to 100 by 1979, the year of the Sandinista revolution.

In 1980, a vocational school for deaf adolescents was opened in the area of Managua called Villa Libertad. By 1983 there were over 400 deaf students enrolled in the two schools. Initially, the language program emphasized spoken Spanish and lipreading, and the use of signs by teachers was limited to fingerspelling (using simple signs to sign the alphabet). The program achieved little success, with most students failing to grasp the concept of Spanish words.

The children remained linguistically disconnected from their teachers, but the schoolyard, the street, and the school bus provided fertile ground for them to communicate with each other. By combining gestures and elements of their home-sign systems, a pidgin-like form and a creole-like language rapidly emerged. They were creating their own language. This “first-stage” pidgin has been called Lenguaje de Signos Nicaragüense (LSN) and is still used by many who attended the school at this time.

Staff at the school, unaware of the development of this new language, saw the children’s gesturing as mime and as a failure to acquire Spanish. Unable to understand what the children were saying to each other, they asked for outside help. In June 1986, the Nicaraguan Ministry of Education contacted Judy Kegl, an American Sign Language linguist from MIT. As Kegl and other researchers began to analyze the language, they noticed that the young children had taken the pidgin-like form of the older children to a higher level of complexity, with verb agreement and other conventions of grammar. This more complex sign language is now known as Idioma de Señas de Nicaragua (ISN).

Nicaraguan Sign Language

I believe the development of face-reading ability in aspies is similar in nature. This suggests that 1) aspies are born with the ability to read faces, 2) development is disabled somehow by an environmental factor (comparable to deafness), and 3) this ability can be developed synthetically in later life through engagement and tangential learning. Arguably, my face-reading abilities are now as nuanced as most high-functioning adult whites, although still much lower than my IQ would predict. It is also likely that a battery of tests would show extremely asynchronous development, as is typically the case for autodidacts in any field of study.

Furthermore, this indicates that face reading has strong similarities with language use, potentially including grammar. I believe it is subject to most or all of the rules of symbolic communication, including abstract principles like Sapir-Whorf. This means that relatively static facial features (bone structure) and dynamic facial expressions are interpreted in the same way as spoken language, with both semantics and prosody. It also means that we can use facial expressions to help us categorize information that we take in, in the same way that a child who can’t distinguish between cats and dogs will learn the words “cat” and “dog” and thereafter distinguish between them effortlessly. This may even be true of facial bone structure, in the same way that our native grammar influences the way we think.

*I may be an exception to this rule, but I’ll have to ask my dad to recall the details because I don’t remember precisely how it happened.

Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments