Linkey

I’ve been thinking now, that perhaps the Handicap Principle isn't actually so counter-intuitive as it can look like. A question for those familiar with Grafen’s experiment: am I right that the "handicaps" (inherently disadvantageous traits that help a male attract females precisely because they are disadvantageous) are exclusively male traits that aren't passed on to female offspring? In humans, for instance, these would be traits encoded on the Y chromosome, which women lack. That makes the whole subject seem more or less clear. Suppose a man has a huge ..., so large that it actually harms him and hinders his survival. A woman considering him as a potential father for her future children knows that if they have daughters, those daughters won't inherit this disadvantaguos trait; instead, they’ll inherit other genes of this man (i.e. the ones that allowed him to survive despite this problem). It’s trickier with sons, but there’s another factor at play: if conditions for the population turn bad and 90% of the males die, nobody really cares, because the remaining 10% will be still able fertilize all the females and pass them their good genes. I think I understand it a bit better now. But that implies that Dawkins was talking nonsense in the final sentence of the last quote above (signal of an animal to a lion) that’s not exactly how it works.

In all times the autocrats use the following rhetoric to justify their wish to keep their power: "the mob is too stupid" and so on. But the fact is, that "the mob is stupid" only because stupid and drinking people are supported and protected by the power, because they are less interested in politics and lefss often criticize the power. I am absolutely serious and I can find a lot of arguments for this statement, both from history or from my own experience. In Russia, there probably was a phrase by Ekatherine the Great - "drunk nation is more easy to govern". She said this phrase, when she was asked, why the government supports the state alcohol monopoly. It is interesting, how much alcohol do people in Switzerland drink?

Sounds nice. Probably this is because their laws are more rational, than in other Western countries.

Currently, Switzerland's political system is most close to what I call direct democracy (although, in reality, it still isn't a true direct democracy - I can explain this point later). A referendum is held in the country every three months. Below, I will share what I know about Switzerland. I have 12 points, but for now, I will present five: 1) According to WHO data, Switzerland has a suicide rate of 9.8 per 100,000 people (2019). For comparison, WHO figures show rates of 14.5 for the USA, 21.6 for Russia, and 21.2 for South Korea. It is also worth noting that euthanasia is legal in Switzerland, which implies that suicide is less stigmatized there than in other countries; 2) In a "lost wallet" experiment, the Swiss proved to be the most honest people among those studied: they returned the wallet (without the cash, but with the key) in 73 percent of cases. The Chinese were found to be the least honest, returning the wallet only in 7 percent of cases; 3) According to UN data, the obesity rate in Switzerland is 19.5% (for comparison: 36.2% in the USA, 23.1% in Russia, and 32% in Egypt (2019)); 4) Switzerland ranks first in the world for life expectancy for men (81 years) and sixth for women (85 years). 5) According to 2021y data I found online, Switzerland has the smallest shadow economy among 31 European countries (it stands at 5.8% of GDP, compared to 13% in France, 16% in Belgium, 22% in Poland, and 32% in Turkey).

I meant that if 90% of all day time will be prohibited for work, the world GDP will be lower 10 times, but this fact itself will not make anybody unhappy. Currently the techologies allow people to live a life which was considered very rich in Middle Ages, if only 1% of the population are working and making the food and goods for others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easterlin_paradox

I can explain: these numerous referendums will be not the referendums in usual meaning, but rather just "super-accurate opinion polls". They will just indicate what people need; and if the government does not fulfill the wish of people, it will become illegitimate and loose next elections. And one more thing: I think that the referendums must be also able to make decisions usually made by judicial branch of power, and if e.g. a president starts a war while people forbid him to do this, after loosing the power this president will be imprisoned via one more decision made by referendum. If the government thinks that a referendum was profane, ok maybe it is right, and it will have to prove that it was right for the people after leaving the power. I understand this problem, but firstly this problem is the same for usual representative democracy (90% of citizens can elect a party which will make the remaining 10% slaves), and secondly it can be solved, at least theoretically. I will explain this later.

I am sure that the direct democracy can solve the overwhelming majority of human’s problems. If a referendum is performed in US with two separate suggestions – banning transgender people in big sports and allowing abortions – I am sure that both the transgenders will be banned and the abortions will be allowed. The majority of Americans will vote for the first point, and slightly other majority, but still the majority, will vote for the second point. These results of the referendum will be good both for the Left supporters and for the Right supporters, because the Right supporters will not become greatly unhappy because of the allowance of the abortions (this question is less important for them, than the second question), and same for the Left supporters. Also, this referendum must cover questions like international politics vector (Ukraine) and the legalization of cryptocurrencies. I don’t know why Trump has not declared that he wants to perform such a referendum. And anyway, maybe his wish is not really so important. I believe that the described referendum can be performed via people’s initiative only, without the actions of the government. Spreading information via forums like this, X and Meta will be enough. Does anybody here guess what I mean? Ok, but after the first referendum, a second one can be performed, and so on, until only 10% of all time can be spent for work.

Speaking of direct democracy and the problem of profanation of referendum decisions, how about this idea: to holdi a planetary referendum proposing a partial ban on work. Following the referendum, each country would have to pass a law allowing 30% of the daytime to be spent on any activity except work. Then, with that 30% of time, people might (maybe out of boredom) start becoming interested in subjects like history and economics. They will also begin to find friends based on such interests, and join political clubs.

Let me paste a fragment of the book of R. Dawkins "Selfish gene". Sorry that the text is very big, and also it is not authentic: it is an auto translation to English of this text in another language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle The handicap principle is a controversial hypothesis, possible confirmed by Alan Grafen. I would like to understand his reasoning. A handicap is a harmful thing, like a peacock's tail, that attracts females precisely because it is harmful. Dawkins uses the following analogy: if two men are running a marathon, one of them has a bag on his shoulders, and they arrive at the same time, then the woman can choose the man with the bag, because her instincts know that he is strong (since he ran fast despite the bag). But this is probably not a correct analogy, because in wildlife such a bag is worn all his life, and is not removed after the demonstration. I will use a simple model. All men are divided into strong and weak, and into drinkers and non-drinkers (four combinations in total). The weak men drink a lot and this makes it very difficult for them to survive. The strong men drink moderately, this also hinders them, but not much. Women don't know if a man is strong or weak, but they know whether he drinks and that he survived. Therefore, if a woman sees a drinking man, she knows that he is more likely to be strong than a non-drinking man. Here is the weakest point - where did this correlation come from, that the weak drink much, and the strong drink a little? You can also suggest that a man stops drinking after the wedding, but somehow it turns out to be strained. Here the handicap principle is criticized, but I think that the skepticism is not well-argumented: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12563

In an interview with Tucker Carlson, Catherine Fitts was using the phrase "two sides of the same party" several times: https://youtu.be/BvLz1bI2sXU As far as I understand, it's perfectly obvious that just like any representatives of big business inevitably monopolize and cartelize finally (they understand that it's more profitable for them to cooperate than to compete), the same process finally occurs with all parties. The only way to solve this problem is direct democracy, at least like in Switzerland - several referendums each year. I really hope that Trump would initiate an all-US referendum asking people to vote on all hot US issues - prohibition of abortions, "gender diversity", Ukraine, cryptocurrencies, etc. This will destroy the illusion "if Americans choose between Harris and Disantis, that means they have democracy".

Please help me to find political or scientific forums in the Web. Previously I wrote about politics at thephilosophyforum forum: The Philosophy ForumThe Philosophy ForumAn independent community-run forum for philosophical discussion, since 2015The Philosophy Forum An independent community-run forum for philosophical discussion, since 2015 www.thephilosophyforum.com www.thephilosophyforum.com But several months ago I was banned there, after creating a thread about Time Patrol, similar to this thread: The decision of the forum moderator to ban me seems even strange, because this thread was highly philosophic and "not too pseudo-scientific" for that forum. Maybe this was a private decision of some forum moderator, not of the forum owner, and this decision can be challenged? If anybody here has an account at thephilosophyforum forum, maybe you can write there in the moderator section about my request? Any other links to political forums will be good for me.

As far as I understand, you can deny any fact (declare it fake) simply because it does not fit into your worldview and make you feel cognitive dissonance?

https://youtu.be/q07dm6lPs2k https://youtu.be/RMg0AGE11oo https://youtu.be/l07MYf2iPr4 https://youtu.be/EjdM3s-sMAI https://youtu.be/6GGriN--BA0 As far as I can see, about half of famous Russian musicians and writers are against Putin and his war. All of them have relocated from Russia.

What do you want to say with this answer? You consider me to be an Ukrainian? Yes I stand with Ukraine. And what is your point?

Well, what about the population of Egypt before the Arab conquest in 642 AD? Do you agree that these Egyptians were replaced by Arabs to significan extent, and now they are the minority called Copts? Would they appreciate this before 642 AD?

...But they can vote only for a party among the list of available Left parties who all support this politics? Well, if the population of England was asked before 1066 year, whether they want to be partly replaced by Normans - would they agree?

https://spectator.com/article/britain-is-facing-huge-demographic-change/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1twt9zv/matt_goodwin_new_uk_school_data_out_today_of/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1l5l9g1/white_british_children_are_now_minority_in_one_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1u5s505/white_people_blocked_from_jobseeker_schemes/ Do the Britons have any possibility to vote for politicians who at least talk about this?

Then why the price of oil is currently only 86 USD, not 200 USD per barrel?

The simplest solution for Trump would be to publicly announce to Putin, that the US will lift some sanctions on Russia, if Putin holds a referendum in Russia proposing peace with Ukraine and the West, unblocking YouTube, and lifting internet blocks of messengers. Both offers and threats could be made ("carrots and sticks"): for example, he could offer to give Russia some Ukrainian territory, or threaten that if Putin doesn't hold the referendum, the US will begin supplying Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles. If this plan doesn't work, another one could be chosen: block the Strait of Hormuz again, ban Venezuela from exporting oil (and perhaps bomb some oil facilities there for effect), raise the price of oil to $200, and then publicly offer China and India cheap American oil if the dictators of these countries agree to hold referendums proposing an alliance with the West and democratization of their countries.

I tried to read, analyse and interpret your post for answering it, and the only thing I can say - how does the statement you said contradict the one I had said?

In my observations, there's always a common goal, but it's usually not recognized. Besides obvious goals, there are also hobbies, which are also similar to goals. I believe that what I'm writing about is mostly true for people called autistic. Sometimes they're also called "Indigo Children." I'm one of those people: in the past, I was very lonely, I had no friends because I couldn't develop usual hobbies, couldn't get involved in the kind of nonsense that allows other people to connect. All my life, I was always observing around me that the socialization is 95% determined by people's hobbies, not by qualities like intelligence and altruism.

Moderators*

I am sorry that I hurried and missed to write full name of the thread: "p-adic numbers and the Ramanujan summation". It seems that the thread name can not be modified by me now, can I ask moredators to modify it?