Harsh Truths

So, if we adjust this to the question: why are there no women chess payers that are grand masters, and set aside the excuses about "statistics", then we can conclude that it has to do with interest.
But....that's not there end of it.
People become more interested in what they are good at, and lose interest in what they are terrible at - because there's no reinforcement pleasure in losing or being terrible, and humans love attention and standing apart and above the group average.
We can say - within a reasonable doubt - that women are less interested in high paying jobs, or in chess, because they are not as good at it as males are.
With no positive feedback, the negative pushes them away.


This relates to my metaphysical positions on patterned (and non-patterned) energies and how from a basic mechanism participles and molecules can and do emerge.
Interactivity referring to attraction/repulsion, and they are measures of harmony.
So, if all is Energy - dynamic interactive - then different kids of Energy refers to different rhythms, tones, sequences....i.e., vibrations - in four dimensional space/time, or oscillations in multidimensional space/time.
What is similar - oscillations that are mores in harmony - will produce les friction and so less repulsion, and this decrease - relative to other interactions - will draw them together.
This is the basis of my thesis on Interactions & Interpretations, and how I differentiate the living from the non-living: viz., life can - has the option, the choice - to follow paths of more resistance, whereas non-living unities can only follow paths-of-least-resistance.

This applies to the previous, as a behaviour that produces less friction between an individual and others, or the environment, will be easier, and so more easily repeated.
Repetition produces habituation, further decreasing friction...and habituation is the foundation of behaviour, and culture.

Whatever challenges, i.e., undermines, prevailing conventional beliefs is considered ‘revolutionary’.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Reality is not a social construct, nor subjective.
Whether I believe or do not makes no difference to what is, it only affects how I fair within what is.

We all live within our subjective interpretations, i.e., knowledge and understanding, of the objective world, and many of us are protected from the severity of the negative consequences of our lack of knowledge and understanding, but our knowledge and understanding of the world does nothing to the world.

I guess it affects the world indirectly, my affecting us.
If our stupidity and ignorance results in bad judgments and choices and we act, then this stupidity becomes part of reality.
But if it remains in our mind, and does not result in choices and actions, then it only affects us, and nobody else.

For example, the Crusaders went off to slaughter thousands in the name of their god - some say their pillaging contributed to the weakening and fall of Constantinople.
If they had kept their convictions to themselves or amongst themselves then very little effect on the world would have occurred..but they didn't.
Their subjective delusions, produced choices, which are actions, and they went off to kill and maim in the name of the god of Abraham, hoping to liberate the Holy Lands from "godless infidels".

Also, Christians slaughtered thousands of pagans, making Hellenic names criminal.....upon to recent days modern Greeks could not name their children using Hellenic names, but had to choose only Hebraic names.
Another example of how judgment, leads to choice/action, producing consequences.

This may shock many brainwashed fanatical Abrahamics and postmodern Marxists...but man didn't invent compassion, empathy, nor love, nor were these ideals absent before Abrahamism.

They are all part of natural selection.

It's unlikely that Darwin was a Nazi, and tis highly improbable that the Nazis invented holocausts, concertation camps and brutality.
A cursory reading into history - particularly American history - may convince you.

Most of you will not be convinced, being indoctrinated and brainwashed, over multiple generations, into American good vs evil concepts and imagery.

As for my personal political views....beyond my descriptions of what is, I will repeat:
I am a Timocrat.
Timocracy preceded Democracy and was so successful that Democracy was a necessary compromise - corruption.

By modern standards I'm an ethno-socialist... where capitalism is adjusted, i.e., regulated, to accommodate ethnic survival.
I think all remaining ethnicities should adopt this if they wish to survive Americanism.
If they want to disappear - commit cultural and ethnic suicide, like the Anglo-Saxons - then Americanism is the perfect system.
Of course Anglo-Saxons - as Heisman said - had their culture totally destroyed, or watered down and replaced by the Norse...so this leads us to Americanism and its vindictive culture-of-no-culture.

Creating, building is more difficult and time consuming than destroying and deconstructing. We build muscle over months of stress and continuous will-power, but then our muscles atrophy over a period of weeks.
Ergo, genius must suffer to be refined and it quickly becomes stupidity when it feels safe and powerful.
This applies to genetics and memetics. Success is the beginning of failure; failure beginning the movement towards success. Strength leads to weakness; weakness necessitates strength. Arrogance leads to humility; humility fuels arrogance.
Hubris.

The idea of something from nothing is the lingering remnant of humanity's nascent self-consciousness.
When, and if, it is overcome mankind would have entered into the next phase of species maturity.

As a general rule... men only care about what other men do or say only if women are interested in what they do or say; women are interested in what men to or say only if it helps them ascend in social status, relative to other women.

I repeat...
What is inferior cannot know & understand what is above it; what is superior can know & understand what is below it more than it can ever know & understand itself, viz., a human can know & understand a chimpanzee, in the span of a year of focused study and analysis, more than it can ever know & understand itself over the span of its entire lifespan.
Understanding necessitates objectivity, correctly defined as lacking sympathetic/antipathetic warping factors – i.e., biologically automated emotional corruptions; organically programmed self-interested motives, other than a desire for clarity; ego based prejudices, manifesting defensive reactions to perceived physical and/or psychological threats.
Philosophy is not for all, because it requires knowledge & understanding, and a degree of objectivity few can muster; philosophers appear as monsters to simpler minds, projecting their own motives and emotions – their inferior knowledge & understanding of themselves – into what remains, for them, forever incomprehensible. The degree of this difference determining the degree of divergence between their respective knowledge & understanding potentials.
Knowing is not understanding; understanding is more than knowing – it has predictive advantages. An individual can know less and understand more about a subject another knows more about.
Knowing about ideas is not the same as understanding ideas – knowing can be first-hand and/or second-hand, the former always superior to the latter, and more difficult; the former also serves to produce understanding far easier than the latter, because it necessitates personal effort that makes it intimate.
Understanding has a genetic component that far exceeds that which is involved in knowing, e.g., a computer can know more than any human can ever know – store quantities of data – and yet a computer is unable to independently come to an understanding of the data that has not been provided.

Is it not the truth that in today's post-Feminism, postmodern world, 90% of males that married and had kids in the past would not be able to have either? That most of us alive today, in the west, are alive because of Paternalism?

Feminist males, in particular, are despicable creatures.
Like all those MRA, MGTOW freaks, adopting feminist methods to avenge themselves against it....exhibiting a cluelessness about sexual dynamics that cannot be healed with age nor with knowledge.
Spiritual stunting.
They were against the only thing that could give them access to the gene pool.
Romantic idealists that never grew up.
And ...look at them now.

Paglia, Camille wrote:

The date-rape controversy shows feminism hitting the wall of its own broken promises. The women of my Sixties generation were the first respectable girls in history to swear like sailors, get drunk, stay out all night—in short, to act like men. We sought total sexual freedom and equality. But as time passed, we woke up to cold reality. The old double standard protected women.
When anything goes, it's women who lose.

Paglia, Camille wrote:

To understand rape, you must study the past. There never was and never will be sexual harmony. Every woman must take personal responsibility for her sexuality, which is nature's red flame. She must be prudent and cautious about where she goes
and with whom. When she makes a mistake, she must accept the consequences and, through self-criticism, resolve never to make
that mistake again. Running to Mommy and Daddy on the campus grievance committee is unworthy of strong women. Posting lists of guilty men in the toilet is cowardly, infantile stuff.

Romanticism adopts the benevolence of 'love' as divine benevolence, absolute 'good', explaining 'evil' as a product of "primordial sin" - blasphemy against this absolute benevolence.
They adopt Abrahamism and secularize its binaries.
Love, eros, is, in fact, both good & evil, or beyond good & evil.
The sexual act is an act of aggression and the act of seduction is an act that necessitates duplicity and manipulation
Trivers comes to mind:

Trivers, Robert wrote:

If… deceit is fundamental to animal communication, then there must be strong selection to spot deception and this ought, in turn to select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as to not betray – by the subtle signs of self-knowledge – the deception being practiced. Thus, the conventional view that natural selection favors nervous systems which produce ever more accurate images of the world must be a very naïve view of mental evolution.

Seduction necessitates deception, oftentimes with the willing participation of the deceived.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Way of the World (@wayotworld) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Imagine trying to explain evolution and natural selection to a primitive man.
He will demand clear, to his mind, and obvious, to his experiences certainties, or he will dismiss your 'word salad' explanations that cannot offer certainty but higher probability, returning to his superstitions that, in his mind, are certain, and comprehensible.

Would there be any hope in having any serious, productive conversation with such a man?

Think of Jayne's Bicameral Mind and imagine returning to ancient times and trying to explain consciousness and self-consciuosness, and conscience, to ancient men who could only understand conscience as spirits or gods talking to them in their heads urging them to do or not do specific things.
Would anyone have any hope of convincing them that the "voices in their head" are not gods but their own inner dialogue?

Threat of Armageddon never comes from an ascending power, it always comes from a descending power.
Currently the descending power is not Russia, nor China, but the American dominion called 'west.'

In regards to Iran...and the "protests triggered by US" and those who want the US degeneracy to be a global reality...

Do women consider it a restriction of their 'freedom' when society disapproves or criminalizes walking around with their breasts out?
What about walking around with no pants or panties?

What about a man walking around in public with his penis out?

Is this moral rule, ethical law, a restriction of their "freedom of expression"?
Why not?

If another culture does not want tis females to dress like sluts and behave like whores, and their sons to not dress like freaks and behave like degenerates, is this wrong?
Is this a restriction of freedom?

If freedom is even possible - according to some it ain't - then how much freedom are you willing to put up with before you say...enough is enough?
Seems that, in the US, they will soon find out why freedom is not possible if you wish to maintain a cohesive system.

When you hear of a 'colour revolution' is is US instigated, funded and maintained.
This si what your government was doping for decades, and none of you Americans gave a shit....
Now that it is hitting home, suddenly some of you notice.

it's when your well-being is threatened that you give a a fuck.
This is a sign of simplicity.
Unable to perceive something in advance, and analyze it objectively.
Animals and manimals know subjectivity....it is easy and requires minimal judgement and work.
Well, animals and manimals, because of their subjectivity, are easily lead to slaughter....sheeple following by Juda goats...
You are being lead to slaughter...as we speak...wake....the fuck...up...

How to avoid being an incel:
You have the sensitivities of a bull...a male cow.
You use money to purchase what you cannot attract physically, nor mentally.
Especially among the sub-classes there are plenty of females that would spread their legs for a few bucks, or a snort of coke, or some free pot, especially after you've given them intoxicants.

Classic beta, or even omega males pretend they aren't what they are, because the system allows them to buy what they cannot earn without money.
In fact such morons assume that the only reason others cannot buy pussy is because they are broke or have some kind of sexual issues - which may be the case.

Who is truly celibate, in these Americanized days, other than one who lacks the funds or the degeneracy to reduce himself to the level of accepting as a good enough substitute purchased love, or female attention bought and paid for?

Now, for a woman to agree to have your child...that takes more funds or...something other than money.

Puberty blocker ad put out by Planned Parenthood, which tells children that they can get puberty blockers to “put their puberty on hold” [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Inside The Classroom (@EITC_Official) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

She’s lost her voice, her chest, and doesn’t know if she can ever have kids.

She has BPD, so doctors cut off her breasts and gave her T.

“There’s how many mental health disorders that make you hate your body, and the solution isn’t to change your body, it’s to fix your brain.” [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Billboard Chris (@BillboardChris) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The Harshest Truths are reserved for the Thinkers of the world.

It's difficult, especially in the West, where you are raised to believe that people are "equal" and "there is only one race, the human race". This propaganda and dogma instills in the Thinker's mind, that, other children and peers "must be like me". But this is false; not only is it false, it is a systemic lie. Thus the Thinker will quickly feel alienated and 'foreign' as he grows, especially as a teenager and during puberty. Why is he so unlike his peer? Why is he 'cursed' with this "gift"? Do others have an "inner-voice" too? Do others think, at all?

He will not find immediate answers, or even distant answers, as he climbs his way above a mountain of Lies-Dogma-Propaganda. Abrahamic fundamentalism is not much different than Secular brainwashing. The difference is 'God', but both essentially operate from the same fundamental Lies. The 'Thinker' is a foreigner, almost as-if a different Specie entirely, from the rest of these self-proclaimed "Humans". But it won't take a Thinker long to begin unwinding one contradiction and hypocrisy, after another, after another, after another, until he finds himself in the midst of those called "Philosophers".

What explains these differences (of Thought) most clearly and readily?

Genetic theory, genes are diverse, and produce Inequality. Anti-Secularism.
Mankind is not Equal, and should not be treated Equally. Anti-Abrahamism.

Could it be, that, instilled in the human specie's genetic code, that few are made to be 'Thinkers' over dozens, thousands, even millions, who are not? And that Slavery is a natural phenomenon? And that those who are stupid and bland, followers of popular fads and the MSM, enjoy their blindness and ignorance? The Thinker's Curse does become his Gift.

Because at least I can choose, to dull my senses, live a lifetime wallowing in alcoholism, or a purple haze, or at the bottom of a meth or crack binge... those who have no mind, no though, no soul, do not have such a choice. They are merely led by their nose by midwits, an inkling of Consciousness, just enough to exploit the lowest 50% of humanity, but not enough to be Self-Conscious.

Not enough to own a Soul/Spirit.

Not enough to have a Meaning/Purpose in life.

An Unexamined Life, not worth living.

Midwits, like those on ILP, philosophy now, etc. immediately feel threatened and retaliate when confronted by a Thinker.

They attack with petulant witticism, attempting to distract their fellow midwits, from the pull and Gravitas of the Thinker's mind.  They always resort to personal attacks: can't get laid, has no friends, any physical deficiency admitted, etc.  These are always, also, projections of inner-weakness.  The midwit demonstrates, readily, his/her own Guilt.  The intimidation is palpable.  The Midwit dare not "think" publicly, dare not answer Philosophical questions honestly and deeply, because that would expose his/her shallowness and mundane, pedantic "beliefs", of which s/he has very few that she'd die for.

All you need to do is force Midwits to respond at length to any topic of conversation, and they'll show you their "rationality" quickly.  They are usually proud to do so.  And they are very easily, emotionally triggered.  Almost always, they cannot trespass too far beyond the popular propaganda (MSM) of the day or week.  Few will pull from years ago.  The more intelligent, the above-average midwits, might know a thing or two about logic, but won't last long in any debate, comparatively.

The challenge for the Midwit is to remain intellectually viable, in front of his/her gang/posse/peers, and especially among the girlies he means to impress.  So these too are easy targets to 'trigger' him/her.  Midwits hate being Exposed, for the frauds and grifters they are...no real belief-system or "metaphysics", because that would imply hours upon hours, a lifetime of such, of thought invested into the most complex topics and challenges of life, and of the world, of humanity and history as well.

As a Thinker, it is quite easy to walk over and across these types of midwits.  Their interest does not rise above the Fads of modernity.  In one century they're devout Christians; in another century they're ardent Secularists.  But their nature, their genetics, do not change.

Because change requires stress and adversity; it requires a Need to change.

Always judge a source by its performance, and the consequences in relation to your objectives.
Try not to adopt another's judgement of them but seek personal experiences, if and when possible.
If this is impossible, or undesirable, then seek multiple sources of judgement concerning them, keeping in mind that the majority are dim-wits - mid-wits, at best.
Then compare what they say with what you see, or what you experience.
Try to make predictions using their opinions - keeping in mind that you may not be aware of all the factors participating in them - or use their predictions, if and when offered - to evaluate their underlying reasoning and the factors you may not fully know nor understand.
Also beware of obscurantists that manipulate language to create a vague intangible, untestable, unfalsifiable, world-view that can never be proven nor disproven, and so relies on offering emotional support, triggering anxieties and reactive easy, flattering, comforting, empowering placations.

A long time ago I predicted that feminism, and liberating women from control, returning to them their sexual power - i.e., their freedom of choice, their free-will - would produce a multitude of disenfranchised males with no investment in the system, nor the future - 'free radicals,' I called them, that would become disruptive to the system requiring constant narcosis and sublimation to make them harmless.
We see a rise in mass shootings, crime, and males losing interest in participation, expressed as cynicism, nihilism, and hedonism.
Denial of free-will is an expression of loss of confidence, trust in oneself, to break free form a faceless, abstract, authority individuals feel helpless to identify and oppose.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

So, if we adjust this to the question: why are there no women chess payers that are grand masters,....

the Harsh Truth is, there are 39 female players who have been awarded the title of Grandmaster, the highest lifetime

title in chess, all of whom are living as of September 2022.

Judit Polgár reached a peak ranking of eighth in the world and shared the same view as her father when she retired in 2015, saying:

We are capable of the same fight as any man. It’s not a matter of gender, it’s a matter of being smart, and


The American Bobby Fischer, on whom The Queen’s Gambit’s lead character is largely based, once said women are “terrible chess

players”, later opining that “I don’t think they should mess into intellectual affairs; they should keep strictly to the home”.

A harsh truth is that women have an inferiority complex, based on gender, similar to how black people and minorities have an inferiority complex, based on race. This compels the smartest and brightest women...or blacks to fight and compete to gain the approval of their perceived superiors. What you are in fact doing, then, is exposing yourself and this unequal relationship. So you should ask yourself, what is the Inequality based on? Why do males out-compete women? Why do whites out-compete minorities? What does it have to do with Nature? Is it "Nurture" or is it Nature? How much?

The gender divide is most obvious. In nature, adolescent males need to compete against each-other (Infighting) for mating-rites. The losers are physically beaten, and forced into exile. The winners gain mating-rites and Alpha position.

Do females do this? No, they don't. So you should reconsider your own intelligence, or that of all women, on this principle. A woman does not need to be smart to survive, compared to the man, who does. If he is not smart, not strong, not clever, etc. then he will lose mating-rites, which forces him into a situation to strengthen, or perish.

Female mammals do not have this evolutionary propulsion. How are women 'intelligent' then? Is it not inherited from the smartest of smart men?

Freyja wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

So, if we adjust this to the question: why are there no women chess payers that are grand masters,....

the Harsh Truth is, there are 39 female players who have been awarded the title of Grandmaster, the highest lifetime

title in chess, all of whom are living as of September 2022.
.

You can build your beliefs on the exception, I'll build mine on the rule.

Women can also be tall and strong and fast....but on average they cannot attain the levels of males, because of testosterone.
Two twins, one male the other female will not be equally tall, nor strong...nor adept at abstract thinking.
Hormones.

Male brains are made for challenging and creating the status quo; female brains are made for reading and maintaining and navigating status quo.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

So, if we adjust this to the question: why are there no women chess payers that are grand masters,..

..
I answered......
The Harsh Truth is, there are 39 female players who have been awarded the title of Grandmaster, the highest lifetime

In this particular response you appear to have no concern about not using precise information and I believe nobody would have corrected you on this point.
This was the reason I thought it appropriate to do so, irrespective of the fact that truth is one of the central subjects in philosophy. 

As both Aeon and yourself answered along the same lines I will respond this way.

Aeon wrote:

Quote :

In nature, adolescent males need to compete against each-other (Infighting) for mating-rites. The losers are physically beaten, and forced into exile. The winners gain mating-rites and Alpha position.

Very much like ape communities?  You have the silverback who is the ruler, then you have all the Junior Apes who are jockeying for position, then you have all the women foraging for this group of useless apes who are playing games of who is top ape. 

Aeon wrote:

Quote :

The gender divide is most obvious.

Do you think so? The lines have been smudged for quite some time in all this mire

 "Feminism is a recognition of the domination of men over women and attempts by women to end male privilege.... It is a theory, a method, and a practice which seeks to transform human relations." - Cynthia Orozco ...

Sounds poetic doesn't it, but futile.

Feminism was once seen as the enemy of the male, but there are bigger fish to fry.

The new enemy for both sexes is the Transgender population.

Who is going to teach our sons and daughters the passage of rite for the sex they are born with?

How can we keep our children "to be in this world but not of it"?

Why is it acceptable to discuss with our 5, 6, 7 year old  do they want to be a boy or a girl?

Gender distortion is acceptable in schools, in universities, among the general population, actually everywhere.

It is scary, because we can't express our distaste or objection to it without being howled down or threatened.