But, in the USA a “friend” is anyone you’ve spoken to for more than 5 minutes. So, a charitable reading is that you should try to deepen friendships with those with desirable qualities.
She seems to be talking about the PMC activity known as “networking” and not the genuine kind of friendship that normal people have. I do not know if she’s aware of the difference.
Just the other day I went and picked up some furniture off craigslist for my homeboy who couldn’t do it because he was working all week. Dude who was selling the furniture was shocked that I would do something like that. Told him I was just as bewildered that he didn’t have people he’s solid with like that
She seems to be talking about the PMC activity known as “networking” and not the genuine kind of friendship that normal people have.
Even “networking” only really works when the people you’re meeting up with and schmoozing actually like you. The whole premise behind these meet-ups is that you’ve got more to offer than some over-polished resume for services rendered.
Of course, Fleischman should know this given that she’s branded herself as The Polyamorous Professor and is literally doing the “sex sells” shit at the academic level. Unsurprising that she’s with a guy half again her senior and basically doing the “Piping down your interns / TAs is Revolutionary, aktuly!” speaking circuit.
Wonder if she and Ghislaine Maxwell are pen pals.
This lady has a child level understanding of evolution.
Repeat after me, nerd:
1.Better, value and quality are subjective. 2.Species that share and work together survive.
Or as my boy Peter so wonderfully explained:
“I failed to find — although I was eagerly looking for it — that bitter struggle for the means of existence, among animals belonging to the same species, which was considered by most Darwinists (though not always by Darwin himself) as the dominant characteristic of struggle for life, and the main factor of evolution…”
"…I conceived since then serious doubts — which subsequent study has only confirmed — as to the reality of that fearful competition for food and life within each species, which was an article of faith with most Darwinists, and, consequently, as to the dominant part which this sort of competition was supposed to play in the evolution of new species.
On the other hand, wherever I saw animal life in abundance, as, for instance, on the lakes where scores of species and millions of individuals came together to rear their progeny; in the colonies of rodents; in the migrations of birds which took place at that time on a truly American scale along the Usuri; and especially in a migration of fallow-deer which I witnessed on the Amur, and during which scores of thousands of these intelligent animals came together from an immense territory, flying before the coming deep snow, in order to cross the Amur where it is narrowest — in all these scenes of animal life which passed before my eyes, I saw Mutual Aid and Mutual Support carried on to an extent which made me suspect in it a feature of the greatest importance for the maintenance of life, the preservation of each species, and its further evolution.
And finally, I saw among the semi-wild cattle and horses in Transbaikalia, among the wild ruminants everywhere, the squirrels, and so on, that when animals have to struggle against scarcity of food, in consequence of one of the above-mentioned causes, the whole of that portion of the species which is affected by the calamity, comes out of the ordeal so much impoverished in vigour and health, that no progressive evolution of the species can be based upon such periods of keen competition.
Consequently, when my attention was drawn, later on, to the relations between Darwinism and Sociology, I could agree with none of the works and pamphlets that had been written upon this important subject. They all endeavoured to prove that Man, owing to his higher intelligence and knowledge, may mitigate the harshness of the struggle for life between men; but they all recognized at the same time that the struggle for the means of existence, of every animal against all its congeners, and of every man against all other men, was “a law of Nature.” This view, however, I could not accept, because I was persuaded that to admit a pitiless inner war for life within each species, and to see in that war a condition of progress, was to admit something which not only had not yet been proved, but also lacked confirmation from direct observation."
This lady has a child level understanding of evolution.
Repeat after me, nerd:
1.Better, value and quality are subjective. 2.Species that share and work together survive.
Also evolution/genetics as it pertains to human intelligence, strength, etc is almost entirely just getting people up to human level potential and the environment they (and their parents) grow up in contributes the strongest to how that actually manifests and develops. You can’t selectively breed humans for anything but the most superficial qualities because everything else is either a confluence of many different factors or is mostly the result of someone’s environment and upbringing.
The single strongest way that one could ensure generations of smarter, stronger people would be to ensure proper, stable access to nutrition, ensure universal access to education and healthcare, and to create a society where violence and trauma are minimized, and then maintain this over multiple generations (because some of this shit is epigenetic and influenced by the conditions of the previous generation). That’s right: you literally just make things better for everyone and humans will naturally reach higher peaks of potential as a result.
You can’t selectively breed humans for anything but the most superficial qualities because everything else is either a confluence of many different factors or is mostly the result of someone’s environment and upbringing.
Most of what is being measured is superficial to begin with. Hence the obsession with hair/eye color, height and weight, mundane cognitive skills like pattern recognition and spatial reasoning, physical strength, stamina, and flexibility, etc.
And you can absolutely breed for these in the same way you might breed dogs (abet on a much longer time horizon / with less change per iteration). But what would you get? Inbred weirdos. Not unlike the Pure Breed dog lines that suffer all sorts of physical and psychological abnormalities.
Breeding a family line such that the overwhelming majority are exceptionally talented at mathematics isn’t outside the bounds of reason. But you’re doing several centuries of work to get a lineage with cleft palettes, clubbed feet, and OCD in order to marginally outperform the curve on the Math side of the SATs.
Meanwhile, the rest of us just boot up Excel or whip out a calculator to achieve several orders of magnitude greater efficiency in computational skills.
Same with the physical stuff. Blonde comes out of a bottle. Gas/Electric engines out perform human athletes. You don’t need to breed super-people. You just need to train ordinary people to use super-tools.
EVO PSYCH IN BIO
This is what happens when you try for high INT but use WIS and CHA as a dump stat.
