The Philosophical Sex

Why do we need to transition to a matriarchy while also understanding that the situation where men win the vast majority of Nobel Prizes is normal and correct? What is the biggest scientific lie about IQ tests that society is not willing to acknowledge for social reasons? Why has the rise in intelligence among Jews halted? Why did the Jewish people need to switch to a Jewish dialect of the English lingua franca, as they previously did with Aramaic, Judeo-Arabic, Ladino, and Yiddish? And why did Kafka conceal the most significant influence on his writing?

The Battle of the Sexes: A Brain Fed by Frustration is More Creative Than One Fed by Satisfaction (Source)

Are men better at abstract and creative thinking than women? On the surface, it seems so, and anyone claiming otherwise needs to explain. If men were on average 3 cm taller than women, something insignificant in daily life, and both had identical distributions, what percentage of the hundred tallest people in the world would be men? And what if the distributions are not identical, and men have a wider distribution and more variance among them? (As we know in almost every measurable field, including intelligence. There are more mentally retarded men and more geniuses - and in general, there are more mutations in men, for evolutionary reasons). There are almost no female painters, whereas there are female poets, even historically, and this is probably because men have a genetic advantage in painting, especially in spatial perception (although women have an advantage in color perception, but what's important in painting is composition, which is why there are also no female composers, while there are many female writers). There is a higher percentage of female rulers than female painters in history. If we look back in history, we'll see in which fields women are better than others, and where they achieved success despite obstacles, in various historical environments. For example, it seems that women are better at mathematics than at theoretical physics or philosophy. Enough time has passed since feminism for the top female talent to be revealed if women were as good as men (the top is relatively more visible than the average - it's harder to hide true genius). Therefore, it makes perfect sense to invest more in men than in women in such professions, as long as we don't miss out on the geniuses among women (which would then come at a heavy price). What are average women better at than average men? Women have undergone much higher and crueler optimization than men to be mothers, and to a lesser extent, partners. So they are better at parenting and relationships and teaching and psychology, and therefore feminism has hurt women because it destroyed the family structure and its value, which were the most available sources of excellence for them, and now they compete against men, and are always resentful because of their scarcity at higher levels and thus their subordination to men. That's why they are more depressed today, when they are in firms and companies under direct male control, than in the past. Not to mention that some of them are lonelier, which wasn't the case in the past. What can be offered to ordinary women today? Instead of ideology - religion. A religion that respects women and gives them a special place. Like the mutation of modern Judaism, just without the problematic and disrespectful history for them, which requires a lot of apologetics and cognitive dissonances. Therefore, a strong female religion is possible, which will give them the power to truly change the world. Against the institutions of government that are still male - religion can be female. Believers of the world, unite. The problem is also that women are much worse mothers than before, because they are afraid of technology, hierarchy, and even culture. And they also invest beyond the threshold of efficiency in each child at the expense of the number of children. But what are women really better at than men, historically, so that it makes sense to let them control the field? In governance. Despite a relatively small number of female rulers compared to male rulers - female rulers stood out significantly for the better, and some were very great and powerful - but on the other hand, they engaged less in conquest and fighting, but rather accumulated power gradually. In other words, what makes sense is to give women precisely the political sphere, where interpersonal relationships are important, and thus also the police-judicial-diplomatic-parliamentary-etc. sphere, meaning the entire governmental sphere, because of their lesser tendency towards physical violence. This lesser tendency alone already justifies transferring control of society to women - and transitioning to a matriarchal society. Therefore, it should be established that only women are eligible to be elected and rule, and to preserve the right to vote for men only out of fear of discriminating against them. In governance, it's actually preferable to have an IQ that's not too high, though above average, so geniuses shouldn't be allowed to rule, unlike other fields where it's worthwhile to nurture geniuses. There are also fewer psychopathic women, and this alone justifies transitioning to a matriarchy.



Because IQ tests were engineered so that men and women (and not, for example, blacks and whites) would get the same average, as society couldn't digest any other result (the test wouldn't be considered reliable otherwise), we don't really know if women and men have the same level of intelligence, and in fact, it's likely not the case. It's possible that the female average is higher than the male or vice versa, but it's clear that at the high and low extremes, men have a significant advantage, so even if there shouldn't be discrimination between adults based on sex, the implication is that in education, there should be a preference for investing in men, or more precisely, talented men (and at an early age, we don't yet know who is talented). Because in intelligence, the whole is less than the sum of its parts. All of humanity together might be only a few hundred times smarter than a single person and not billions of times. Two people with an IQ of 80 are not as smart as one person with an IQ of 160. In fact, maybe it takes a country of a million people with an IQ of 80 to compete with one person with an IQ of 160 in intelligence, for example in a chess game, or in scientific cultural progress. A country where there are a million people with an IQ of 100 and another thousand people with an IQ of 160 who are in the capital will win in the long run over a country where all million have an IQ of 120, or a country where people with an IQ of 160 are evenly distributed. Golden ages were periods when suddenly all the potential genius pool connected and concentrated in one place or one discourse. Although they always existed before, scattered in the population, and their influence was low. Humanity is deteriorating because of the dispersion of the cultural center. And Israel is also deteriorating because of the social-religious split, which separates geniuses into separate discourses, unlike in the diaspora where political and economic division doesn't interfere with all geniuses being in the same discourse, by virtue of being Jewish. The likely genetic superiority of Jews in intelligence shows that humanity still had much to gain from improving intelligence through artificial breeding, but also that there's probably an intelligence limit in the current genome, say of 200, just as there might be a limit on the maximum age of 120. If we had bred with each other long-lived individuals (of course we couldn't have known in advance) then maybe we would have extended life expectancy. What ruined the rise of intelligence for humanity is the human attraction to beauty, which repeatedly mixed high intelligence with low, and mainly caused the rise of beauty in the human species, and not the rise of intelligence. Indeed, an ugly person resembles an ape. Especially a man, where there was less selection in the direction of beauty. Apart from Judaism, there was no human movement that bred people in the direction of intelligence. And even in Judaism, it's a matter of a few dozen generations and not a comprehensive approach but a byproduct of other trends. And still, it helped Judaism to be as strong in the world as about a billion people, as an order of magnitude, that is, a hundred times its size, just because of at most twenty percent more intelligence, and probably less (on average much less, but we're talking about the elite). You can create an index where every ten percent in intelligence, as an order of magnitude, is worth 10 times more people. Hence, only a more additive combination of intelligence, through a network of minds, will be able to compete with a computer, whose intelligence is likely growing exponentially, and has already surpassed that of a fly. And the question is what will happen first. There are all reasons to believe that the network of minds will happen before artificial intelligence, and then the Jews will lose their advantage, gradually, as the network becomes more additive. But because of the stupidity of the current network, it's not certain that it will be so easy to quickly reach a more additive network than today, and it may happen the other way around. The tiebreaker could be the ability to engineer golden ages through the network, meaning connecting only the geniuses. In the end, what caused women to be, apparently, less intelligent than men (or at least less intelligent than Nathanian philosophers), is precisely that men are more attracted to female beauty. And therefore women are selected more for beauty and less, relatively, for intelligence. That's why women are much more beautiful than men. If women were as shallow as men, and apparently they weren't much less shallow (otherwise the differences between the sexes would be more pronounced and men would be much smarter than women, which is certainly not true), then men would be as beautiful as women and as intelligent. There may also be another explanation that the genes for intelligence and beauty affect both sexes almost equally, and therefore what is created is an averaging between the sexes in both areas, but like in beauty, this probably doesn't negate the differences.



The Holocaust is a huge failure of the Jewish people, but those who take great risks, and go for greatness, also fail greatly. And an example of going for greatness is the State of Israel. The whole question of the territories is a question of whether to go for greatness and take a risk. Perhaps another people after the Holocaust would not have taken the risk of the State of Israel - and perhaps they would have been right, given its cultural level - but instead would have become the elite of the world. If the Jewish people had remained scattered in various diasporas, but maintained a network of connections, their advantage in the era of globalization would have been enormous and visible to all. The State of Israel can justify itself only if it goes for greatness in the cultural field, and contributes great culture to the world, like the Bible and Christianity and Communism and Psychology. But history shows that it is precisely sitting and connecting with the Gentiles that creates great culture, and therefore only virtuality will be able to connect Israel to world culture, and in this sense, the biggest mistake was Hebrew. The Arabs are currently a people of low level, and even if it's not genetic but cultural - it doesn't mean that it can be easily changed through education. Because culture, in the social sense and not the personal sense, is something that takes generations of effort, and even in the personal sense it takes about ten full years of investment from life, to be an average native in a culture. And it's a project that few adults have the resources to invest in. The Holocaust was the destruction of human capital value of about between a tenth to a fifth of the world's human capital at that time. This is an enormous destruction of value. We need to move from the concept of human value as a human - as a spiritual unit - to a concept of spiritual capital. An eggplant has lower spiritual capital than a cow, and not all people have the same human-cultural capital, on the contrary, there are big differences. The moral question is how to behave towards someone who has different human capital from you - not just less than you, but also more? One should respect those who have less, but assist those who have more (not the opposite!). And especially there is importance in assisting those who are unable to realize the human capital within them. Hence the moral imperative to educate a child to culture - parenting - and also the imperative to help another person. But the degree of help depends on the quality of the person. Of course, causing harm is not justified between human beings, but the degree to which it is not justified depends on the greatness of the person and the greatness of the injustice alike, and not just on the greatness of the injustice alone, and so does the degree of good that should be given. Therefore, the Holocaust is terrible because it was done not to just any human beings but to those of particularly high value - it killed the gifted children of the class. Similarly, helping a gifted child has a higher moral value than helping an ordinary or struggling child. Society is not measured by its help to the foolish (whom Christian morality likes to call the weak) but to the wise.



There is no doubt that the Holocaust created an enormous challenge for the Jewish myth, that is, a tremendous cultural opportunity for renewal and the creation of a great book. Why didn't this happen? Where was the creativity in the Jewish myth before the Holocaust and where did it stop? In fact, at a dead end. But not just any dead end, but one with intent. Rabbi Nachman of Breslov was part of the Romantic movement, and its representative in Judaism, and his tales anticipated Grimm's fairy tales, as the use of tales to create myth, but for him it was about a myth that would express the modern rupture. He starts from the Zohar's method of creating myth by copying an ancient genre, "from ancient times," and just as the Zohar did a renaissance so he does modernism. And just as the Ari introduced the personal into the mythical structure, in relation to the scientific structure, so did he introduce the personal into the narrative myth. Kafka took from him the combination of the personal with the mythical, and the combination of the real with fantasy, and the absurd and paradox and lack of solution, and the religious rupture and the dressing of the religious in literature. That is, the revival of myth writing through the tool of legend (in Nachman) passed to the revival of myth writing through the tool of the novel (in Kafka), which is the contemporary literature they knew. Agnon dealt with the renewal of religious writing through language and through cynicism (because the direct primitive approach was no longer possible after modernism), but in terms of genre he simply copied from legend, from the novel and from Kafka. And therefore he failed to create a significant innovation like his two predecessors. His peak is Edo and Enam, where he managed to touch the myth through the transparent handkerchief of research (cruel irony towards Agnon, who mocked research cruelly, but failed to touch the furnace of his own religion's soul without the tongs of researchers). And it's even less simple for Gentiles to write myth. Magical realism is also a watered-down version of mythical realism, just as magic is a reduction of myth, as practical Kabbalah. Goethe also failed exactly in this with Faust, and Shakespeare failed in the remnants of magic from the Middle Ages, unlike the Catholic Dante and the Zohar who used medieval bureaucracy and courtly literature. The Russians failed with creating modern mythical literature because of the weakness of Orthodox Christianity as a myth: Dostoevsky perhaps succeeded a little with the Grand Inquisitor, but the significant failure was in incorporating Gogol inside, which Bulgakov tried to assemble in The Master and Margarita, but fell into romanticism. In short, it's not simple to create a valid myth. Because the mythical space is an attempt to create a space of mystery and fantasy within reality - and it's easier to hide in the past than in the present. The Zohar understood that this is only possible through forging an ancient text, and its innovation was the personal aspect - the invention of its hero Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and the ideal group around him - and it existed within a world of homiletic writing. The Ari already used the scientific perception of his time, that is, a hidden worldview and hidden structure. Nachman used fairy tales, and so it was possible to go back. Kafka used literature, after it became fiction, as a medium that allows this. Each according to what his era allows, because the old patterns become irrelevant and artificial and cannot be used. And today, virtuality can be used to create myth - and if it's already difficult to hide it even in the past, it can be hidden in the future. Kafka is like Paul - his success is in transferring the religious mythical context to a secular world, without direct Jewish context and without commandments, to go with and feel without, it's Kabbalah for Gentiles. And therefore his influence is much broader than the Jewish examples, because it's taking Jewish content and putting it in a form that would be suitable for Gentiles. The idea of book burning and tuberculosis he copied from Nachman, and also the idea of dying at age 40, and also the idea of taking some Nathan of Nemirov named Max Brod. Exactly one hundred years after the publication of the Tales, they were translated into German and Kafka read them, and of course hid the source of his writing, just as Agnon denied reading Kafka, and just as Nachman and the Zohar hid the source of their writing, and just as Moses hid. Hiding the source and influences is the tradition in this mythical tradition. Because myth has no source.