Category Archives: specialization

When is money just favour?

cash

Money is currency with the additional simultaneous attributes of property.  Inherent value and therefore purchasing power beyond the lone trust of either set of attributes.  An insurance policy against corruption of either.  It likely came about from attempts at corruption from psychopathic forces.  Creating a dual trap of the conscience to block animalistic regression back to territory or favour.  Each element protecting the other.  Money was invented to make both property and currency resistant to corruption from short term thinkers.

As discussed property and currency are derived from the conscience.  This stems from our discussion of the behavioural differences between animals (and psychopaths) and conscionable human beings.  As a a result we can assert what property and currency can not be.

Property can not be a territory.  Currency can not be favour.  The primary difference between both is the internalized will of the conscionable human being to respect both ownership and accomplishment in the present and future without further work.  In the case of property and currency, if you add the work of defense back in the result is, territory and favour.

This is why debt based money is a fallacy.  It functions on the premise that any currency can be made into money simply by promising it in the future.   ‘Money’ is created by saying the property is the promise of future human labor.  Money can never be debt because it completely undermines a conscionable construct and replaces it with it’s psychopathic social structure.  Debt based money is based on the concept that human beings, or at least their labor can be property.  Unreasonable on it’s face.

A debt based money turns property into territory.  Currency into favour.  Property and currency, which long term risk weighs as beneficial to the whole, becomes more subject to the whims of nature and man.  They are no longer the pillars of investment and economy of scale, but a transient permission to persue them.  A favour.  In a way debt-money is psychopathic commentary on the conscience itself.  The lender with a short term jealousy based risk management borrows the wisdom of a holistic conscience long term risk management system in exchange for the only thing they can give, territory and favour.  ‘You may continue to produce widgets to pay off your business debt.  You may continue to maintain the banks house.  You thought you were so smart about risk.  I don’t care what happened, your labor is mine.  Pay me.’

Systemically the reason the self contradicting nature of debt as money is not detected earlier is the competition it inspires.  During the transition from property and currency to territory and favour society can benefit from the attributes of both cooperation and competition.  Guiding and applying each to a perpetually lessening degree.

Eventually cooperation fails.  The mechanism is simple.  Compound interest, once introduced, demands growing competition.  Investment itself becomes no longer wise and eventually no longer possible.  Currencies and property begin to evolve outside of the system.  The debt-money loses trust, and the economies of scale, which need some degree of systemic cooperation, collapse.

I know of the properties that couple well with currencies now, but can’t imagine what they will be in the future.  I do know they need little defense.  I know true currency forces no hierarchy, and fiat can never be money.  I know people, and their labor can never be property.  Money was imagined to resist reversion to an animalistic society.  The day we discover the perfect money, will be the day we no longer need it.

Edit 6/10/15: Added a link.

Psychopaths effect on culture

competition

“Did you exchange. A walk on part in the war, For a lead role in a cage?”  –Pink Floyd

What are the consequences of shifting a civilization’s culture from an empathic one?  The scripts and narratives the psychopaths use become embedded in our metamind and in turn form myths.  One could spend a lifetime exploring and discussing those myths, but that shouldn’t stop us.  That very idea leads into the first myth.

1.  You must be an expert:  You must understand something en total to contribute to it’s exploration. – Since all exploration occurs at the outlying data, and outlying data is OUTSIDE the pattern and the potentially incomplete or incorrect function that’s assigned to it, a new perspective may be the only functional one.  I’m not saying modeling the world around us has no value.   I’m saying pretending safe understood decisions are growth is a lie.  A lie told specifically to prop up the master/slave relationships that psychopaths superimpose on our lives to simplify their social interactions.  This flows into our next myth.

2. Experts must be vetted: It is dangerous to allow decisions to be made by people without official training. – While learning is always beneficial, there are often vast obligations that come with vast training.  Those obligations form another hierarchy, which in turn can put cooperation, the source of most human progress, at risk.

Experts are often employed at the periphery of growth where there their role if successful is not to employ their training, but to avoid it.  Yes knowing what’s known is important, but being multi disciplinary, probably not at an expert level is more important to identifying the cause and sources of outliers.  Since there are not enough hours in a human life to become and expert in everything, cooperation is needed where disciplines intersect aka: the outliers.  The only thing expertise guarantees is more of the same.

3. Competition is efficient:  There are winners and losers, and who needs the loosers?  –  Competition can efficient, but also can be flat out counterproductive.   It can be very beneficial but not for the reasons frequently touted.  Competition is great for forming perspective.  Understanding others points of view and skills, and understanding your own.  It’s great for learning how to fail and observing behavior and expressing compassion when others fail.  Competition is crucial to communication, as we explored communication is needed for real growth or progress.

Problem is a competition is defined by it’s rules, so it’s only as good as they and their scope, interpretation, and enforcement are.  Rules that promote both fair weights and measures and personal expression are fundamentally conscionable because they promote communication.  Communication is vital to growth as the periphery is explored.  At any scale it enhances the economy of scale.

Poor competition focuses on rewards, especially external to human communication.  The more permanent power such rewards afford, the less productive it is.  While not all communication or interaction is productive, blocking communication through hierarchy(the afforded power) is never productive.  While it may exclude the selfish and inept, it also removes the individuals ability to decide who those unable players are.   Reward focused competition is a way to disable the risk assessment abilities of the competitors conscience, allowing the psychopath equal footing, at the expense of both real growth and productivity.  This is identified by most as the lack of will to ‘play fair’, as learning benefits of the game are counter productive to the psychopaths status above those around them.  Their real goal is obfuscation of their condition and avoidance of their more primal reactions like jealousy.  That goal is hurt by growth stemming from cooperative competition.

4. Silence is consent:  That’s a myth deriving from freedom as a give and take (which proper freedom is). – Just because you are in a position to see risk doesn’t mean you can address it.

At this time in the United States, it is widely thought that speaking your mind is both a human and legal right.  But there is a flip side.  Trying to convince people of a wrong, if you fail, will create the opposite effect.  We have embraced judgement of winners and loosers instead of consideration.  Consideration of both freedom and perspective.  Often a failed attempt to sway a person is considered proof that person is wrong.

To end implied consent we must end judgement of those who speak their minds.  Not only should we walk a mile in another mans shoes, but then fail to judge after we take them off.  Wisdom is the understanding of our vast limitations when assessing the environment around us.  We can see what’s in front of us.  We can only feel our own heart beat.  We only speak of the things for which we have words the listener understands.  Cooperation is difficult with our small perspective in a big universe.  Only a concatenation of our views can begin a mosaic with any real perspective.  A mosaic which will never form without communication.   Communication that will never happen if we only play to win favour instead of the currencies of accomplishment.  That is how the psychopath population destroys a civilization.  By inspiring people to jail themselves with perspectives they can’t change to protect rewards from rules that block progress, by blocking cooperation.

If you liked this please review my type one civilization paper and consider supporting legal distribution.

Jealousy: The psychopath’s conscience

Risk

Civgene indicates the narcissism, ASPD and sociopath labels as a logical progression similar to id, ego and superego.  This led later to the metamind model, as a way to understand the subconscious and empathy as attributes of empathic or non-psychopath humans.  We’ve discussed emotional primitives of bliss, despair, and will to action as the building blocks of complex emotions responsible for imagination as the underpinning of empathy.  Also we’ve considered the psychopaths ability to love, and it’s limitation to a subtle compulsion to help immediate family such as other mammals display.

With the previous ideas front and center a new consideration emerges.  Animals display jealousy.  Anyone with more than one pet has seen the green eyed monster emerge, over toys, food, attention.  Animals want each others territory and favour.  They seem so knowing, so human, when they are jealous.

It could be perceived that jealousy is proof that animals display complex emotions.  Namely emotional reactions that involve more than one primitive emotion at once.  The behavior that results can be intricate, but this is not evidence of emotional complexity.  Jealousy occurs when a strong bliss, dispair, and then will to action reaction happen at the same time.  The difference is empathic humans can be jealous as an act of imagination in any time and place, imagination being that passive relational database that is the conscience.  Animals and psychopaths react to the now.

What triggers all three primitives?  It seems to begin with witnessing external bliss.  Bliss seems to create a sympathetic reaction in all animals interested in the same territory or favour as another.  One animal senses (sees,hears,smells,etc) another enjoying something and bliss is triggered within them as well.  Without the access the other animal has, the bliss activates despair.  Despair is simple helplessness.  Once despair has reached sufficient depths, will to action is called.  Will to action then drives a vast array of actions based on the available rational thought.  Rational thought that may be impaired by the strong emotion.

This progression bliss -> despair -> will is ubiquitous.  The desire to ‘steal’ what empaths may deem property or currency or interfere in a friendship is occurring at their LEAST rational state.  Emotions and the chemical signals they employ have taken over the brain.  There is no choice in the process, most importantly there is less or no rational thought.  Jealousy is the animal kingdoms more primitive risk management system.  The jealousy risk engine is the predecessor to the conscience.  Serving a vital role.  Making sure that learned behaviors during periods of calm don’t dictate actions at the moments of highest risk.  Namely one animal taking another’s territory or favour.  It’s a simple trick to snap an animal out of a more common pattern and stand up for it’s self.

A psychopath who has progressed to a sociopath rationally recognizes this risk.  He or she will work to avoid situations that provoke jealousy.  Partly by limiting social access themselves to those who will accept their assignments without challenge, and partly by becoming materially successful beyond practical needs.  They become wildly rich to avoid the green eyed monster.
It’s a good strategy when social interactions are infrequent or small, but inferior to our risk engine, the conscience.  Jealousy breaks down as complexity increases.  Civilization and it’s enabler the conscience creates the invention and surplus needed to concentrate great wealth and power in psychopath hands, but the psychopaths must face other psychopaths with similar wealth.  Instances of jealousy can not be eliminated inside a human civilization.

The flaws in managing risk through jealousy are two fold.

  • Centralized power pushes out investment.  While invention creates surplus, power saps it.  Invention will always occur from empath humans but as a power structure becomes more pervasive, more invention simply occurs outside it.  Currency systems form as a way to capitalize on the external investment, and new power is formed outside the old scope.  This can be at any scope from a family farm to competing superpowers.  Currency (including money) goes to where it is treated best.
  • Any environment from a town to a planet has natural boundaries.  Since there will always be opportunities to create jealousy a sociopath will assert their dominance until they are stopped by force or exhaust all resources.  While they can limit the frequency of jealous experiences, it is a fantasy from a primitive time that they can prevent them.

 

Notice that both of these risks are long term.  Hence the idea the civilization gene, the mutation of the metamind, is a superior engine of long term risk management.

Sociopath stage psychopaths can reliably be identified by their desire for wealth and power.  We must avoid the exhaustion of global resources, not by further centralizing their power, but by focusing our power of invention at a local scope.  A psychopath will see external currencies as risk as per their tool jealousy, but they have a major disability when weighing risk to property, currency and the autonomy they enable.  Currency and property of any type is derived from the conscience itself.  Shun false ‘leaders’ that want power over local currencies.  Not just currencies we trade for goods and services, but anything that defines our skills, experience and identity.  Not out of jealousy of their wealth, but as rejection of their inability to even discern, much less serve, humanities interests.

Nature is cruel, and it costs her.

Darwin

Nature is a series of random genetic accidents with winners and losers.  That is evolution.  The observed evidence is insurmountable.  I can not discount that evolution could be incorrect, but it is the most viable explanation at this time.  It stands out in a way that describes other views not as theory but as faith.

Faith as critical to the human condition.  Faith is how the conscious mind receives and considers messages from the subconscious one.  Those messages not only comprise your ability to integrate into civilization, but protect you as long term risk management.  Together rational, logical thought, and messages of faith from the conscience form reason.

Reason’s initial advantage to pure logic is speed.  We can quickly asses risks in ways we can not on a purely factual basis.  Logic is complex as the facts are many.  As computer simulation demonstrates, eventually too complex to calculate.  We have a flawed but mostly effective method to quickly get the same results.  The conscience is a probability engine.  It is characterized by cooperation, at a level I do not observe the effects of in nature.  Systems of cooperation emerge between species, but by the same random genetic events that characterize all of nature.

Here are some examples of cooperation I do not see elsewhere in nature.  For contrast I compare their closest analogy .  Not coincidentally the closest simulation of the conscionable behavior a psychopath can offer.  It is important to note these do not require intelligence, just subconscious awareness of risk based on experience, and the rational ability to acknowledge the warnings.  All conscionable elements extend beyond kin or pack structure.

Property – Identity of an place, item, or accomplishment belonging to a being or a group.  Honoured and understood as a provision of autonomy to a distant time.
Territory – Control of a place, item, or role by a being or group.  Enforced by violence.  Revoked by absence.

Freedom – A cooperative model of non interference.  The promise of non interference in exchange for a return of the same.
Treaty – A stalemate, a mutual temporary cessation of conflict to avoid over exertion.

Friendship – The expectation of continued freedom between parties despite periodic violation of it.
Alliance – A temporary teamwork towards and depending on a common goal.

Currency – A convenient object or idea representing and interchangeable with other property.  A promise of property. 
 Favour – A treaty, a yield of territory to display deference to hierarchy.

Investment – Dedication of time and calories into a being’s or a groups creative development.  Requires property and currency to realize return.
Assignment – Dedication of time and calories into another’s territory with the expectation of favour.

Civilization – An organization including property, freedom, friendship,  and currency.  Characterized by trust.  Allowing investment (farming, storage, trade), subsequently specialization, and it’s side effect economy of scale.
Pack –  An organization based on territory, treaty, alliance, and favour.  Structured by assignment of roles.  Transient.

Civilization may look intelligent, but it need not be.  The concepts are simple.  No more or less formulaic than pack structure.  Other animals may demonstrate fleeting glimpses of the aspects of civilization, but there is a cost in energy they are not interested in paying.  Why?  Because they can’t calculate the risk.  If they could, choice is clear.

In case you didn’t notice I included only the most simple tools.  There are  plenty of cases in nature where animals farm, store or even trade.  Many animals (not just primates) use tools.  The components are there, but the conscience is not.

There are animals that outstrip humans in vision, memory, hearing.  Not intelligence, but they can come very close.  Especially when considering our worst mean cases and their best.  That should be sufficient in isolation to create a civilization, but it doesn’t.  This is meaningful.  Intelligence may be important to a civilization, but is not the only component.

The definitions have a common attribute.  All of the conscionable cases have a future time component to them, while all of the pack ones only consider now.  I strongly suspect this is related to how the conscience works.  It seems the case that humans are alone in their ability to use emotional metadata, to dial groups of memories backward or forward in time without habit.  The very thing that makes us kind, makes us smart, as a group.  Humans can use how they feel to reference their entire memorable history for clues how to survive.  The very fortunate side effect of organizing by emotional memory for assessing risk, is the compassion needed to work in a group.  To build more than a pack, but a whole civilization.

We struggle with our role because it is a dualism.  We are psychopaths at the rational level.  In this way we are the children of nature, and our ability see future risk makes us it’s master as well.

Edit: Added investment.  Minor change to currency.

Edit 2: Changed ‘Invention’ to ‘creative development.’  Both words are needed for the right concept here.   Both work and invention, where the sum is greater than the parts.  Some spelling errors.  Included accomplishment or role as a property.

Respect

respect

I have always thought this word was terribly abused, but didn’t really understand why until after the first time a known psychopath uttered it to me.

Most people associate respect with feelings for their parents.  This makes sense as our childhood is peppered with variants of ‘respect your elders.’  Through childhood emotional associations, the word gathers a new emotional sum in the metamind.  Logic can be overwhelmed with mandatory emotional recall of love and wisdom.  In the worst case respect can wrongly come to mean an act of the conscience itself.

In adulthood the word is not used that way.  It is used to establish rank.  A deviation among empathic humans, but not a catastrophic one.  To civilization, respect means variants of rank and division of labor and importantly the associated responsibility.  Respect is used to honor those who commit themselves to others.

Psychopaths can form alliances, but can’t commit to others in a selfless way.  Yet they love the word respect.  They love it’s logical connotation of rank and it’s emotional value of love and wisdom in empaths.  To them it defines a master-slave relationship, and is a tool for enforcing it.  When a psychopath tells you to respect him or her, they are telling you your rank.  They are identifying you as their slave.  To them phrases ‘show some respect’, and ‘how dare you do that to me!’ are variations of the same theme, blind obedience to your master.  Their position is master, of you.

Parents I know it is easy to fall back to order and rank and use the word respect with your children, but you are conditioning them to enslavement by clever psychopaths.  You are programing their conscience to be used against them.  Instead of emphasizing your command and control I humbly propose using consideration or considerate in it’s place.  Specifically associating accomplishment with how you treat other people.  Creating a pathway to bettering themselves not just in isolation, but with the societies on which we all depend.

The Distribution Party endorses – Open Source

code

Open source may well be the most important invention of modern times.  It’s supporting invention is the Internet.  It replaces distribution hierarchies which have been installed throughout history to piggyback graft and systems of corruption onto the practical logistics of organization.  History will not be kind to it’s many opponents.

Open Source is social structure, supported by a legal structure and a near real time technical organizational system.  The social structure creates the fast technical organizational system using computer code, and uses the Internet to share is at near real time speeds.  The social structure requires near perfect adherence to core scientific principles.  Core principles being, ubiquitous opportunity peer review, experimental repeatability, and a working copy of the reference model and it’s complete plans.  It uses contracts and their supporting legal structure to prevent corruption.

Open source has been mistaken for a business model but it’s actually a social governance model, a utilitarian technocracy for the scientific method.  It uses competition and a legal restrictions on potentially arbitrary use restrictions.  In this it keeps the rules equally lax for all participants in the competition, a cooperative behaviour.  This lack of use restrictions allows for fluid and voluntary participation with any society, or the ability to form a new society should it become inefficient or ineffective, better known as forking.  Forking is critical at it’s core because any restriction on competition can become non-cooperative and form a basis for non-cooperation.  This allows for the orderly, rapid abandonment of a hierarchy should a psychopath obtain a prominent position within it.  Please see my paper on type one civilization for more details on the importance of avoiding rigid hierarchies.

At first Open Source was best known for it’s original success Linux.  Creating a computer science reference model for well understood problems, many if not most uses of computers can happen efficiently and effectively when running Linux.  Initially support for Linux, the GPL and open source was largely practical.  Solving the scaling problems of computer code originated and owned by historically large computer software corporations.

While not nearly as popular as Linux, RepRap has an order of magnitude more potential impact.  It is an open source 3d printer technology, laying lines of plastic extruded at a high temperature on a 2 dimensional descending platform.  The plastic components of the machine, the computer aided design, and the resulting plan files for actual objects are all open source and highly resistant to corruption and forking.  In addition to the scope of objects and devices that can be devised of plastic, scrap material recycling equipment, circuit boards, and other types of material like metal printing are all in various stages of planning and production.

Cryptocurrencies, specifically the reference model Bitcoin is opensource’s most important creation to date.  It enforces honesty and the retention of purchasing power of unspent currency.  While transactions are anonymous by default (with some careful planning) it uses a peer to peer system to distribute a ledger of all transactions ever performed to every Bitcoin wallet, commonly known as the block chain.  Despite some misconceptions, wallets can be traced back to people with a reasonable amount of ease, should a legal response be warranted.  New coins or ‘very hard to guess’ numbers are awarded to ‘miners’ who on average exert the most computational work to obtain them.  Unlike all currencies and equities today, new Bitcoins are allowed to be found by any miner by consensus, not issued to ‘special’ parties by decree or fiat.  All transactions are performed independently of any central authorities, forcing security services like banks to compete strictly on the quality of their service and price efficiency.

The broader open source communities dual will and action to avoid hierarchy has paid off.  Wildly successful without the usual hierarchical graft despite not having direct corollary of financial reward to cooperative effort contributed.  Economy of scale, uncorrupted, is humanities civilizing force.  It seems as if the scale of humans has been reached where the benefits of cooperation exceed the wealth extracting hard power of master/slave hierarchies.  Vast concentration of wealth and power is not necessary to promote economic growth, just the peer to peer information sharing power of the Internet, and the tools to use it when we personally need it.

Type one civilization paper complete

peace

Major additions to the type one civilization paper. Added a comprehensive section on how to reform national governments to reduce corruption. Please reread and share.

Here is an excerpt.

I would suggest a new political party would be needed. The distribution party, or the distributors of law. Endorsing capitalist republics, but ones with minimal powers under constant scrutiny and subject to regular legal distribution. Fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Dedicated to rewriting laws and their allocated funding to the smallest locales possible.

http://civgene.matthewnewhall.com/papers/Type-one-v3.html

Please comment, share, like and discuss.

Deacon’s paradox.

net

So reading though ‘Liars and Outliers’ , and everything was going great until about page 45.  Then Bruce Schneider seems to take a logical leap simply attributing all logical behavior by humans to a system called ‘Deacon’s paradox.’  This struck me as the ‘game theory’ (aka: jump the shark) moment of the book.  Lets look closer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/symbolicspecies.htm

He talks about fossil evidence being the smoking gun.  He’s quite correct both that it can’t be extracted, and that if we could take a molecular look at prehistoric man’s brain we could compare and understand.

“Even though neural science has pried ever deeper into the mysteries of brain function, we still lack a theory of global brain functions.”

Not anymore.  With the psychopath as the prehistoric predecessor to empathic humans we can do a molecule to molecule analysis.  We just haven’t.

This seems to be Deacon’s book discussing the to complex to describe in less than ten chapter theory.   Not all the reviews are great.  Rejecting further analysis on the chance that it’s a tar pit.  Even if the theory is that complicated, the predictions should describable in mere paragraphs.

http://www.amazon.com/Incomplete-Nature-Mind-Emerged-Matter/dp/0393049914

The bottom line is this.  It’s hard to take any theory seriously that doesn’t account for at least two separate hardwired social strategies into account.  In the case of ancient breed, irrational trust, and selfish logic.