It wouldn’t. I mean both genders can be non-distinctively assholes, so we need to be a bit clearer here, but with all of the diversity we already have, there are some places where we need shared knowledge and action to account for all of that diversity, to absorb it and use it to our collective advantage… gender differences can’t allow this type of activity to occur, precisely because they don’t allow for this “groupthink” about common wisdom.
How are you to have all of that diversity if everyone is the same?
Everyone had/has an asshole James =)
So you favor the eternal Hell on Earth concept - everyone constantly fighting, never satisfied, always struggling. So as to accomplish what? Great wealth for a very few on top of the festering pile until everyone is replaced by androids?
How does that achieve maximum IJOT?
Sorry, I should have said rectum… I was using the physiological analogy for the psychosocial point I was making. We can all learn heuristics for eliminating aggression and still have great multiplicity. Just like there’s great physical multiplicity but everyone has a rectum. We can all get on the same page with basic education about game theory to eliminate aggression (conspicuous type of aggression).
For example, in my previous posts about encryption and decryption, if someone figures out a way to encrypt the merit system heavily, so this tiered system with the capacity to choose people for sex as part of the culture, they get an extremely high reward… I would rather see people in encryption / decryption wars (which improves the reality orientation part of the brain) than the types of wars we currently engage in… and to use the sex drive to do it, will push this to the limit. That’s a much more peaceful way to approach something that causes the most conflict (conflict that arises because of gender differences). It wastes so much cognitive space and motivation for innovation to have the gender differences and culture around them that we currently have.
Aggression is attempting to achieve your goals. If there is diversity, different people are going to be aiming toward conflicting goals. Due to conflicts, they must aggress else no one will be able to achieve anything because there is always someone in the way - very UN-joyful.
An alternative is to make all people identical so that many more of them are striving for mutual goals and not conflicting. Very peaceful … but?
So there you have extreme diversity and extreme equality.
There are two major roads to the Abyss;
- Warring
- Peace
Read my last post too about encryption / decryption. No extreme equality is if you keep cloning the same person over and over again and teaching them all the same things… what you need is a base of groupthink about rational game theory, and let the diversity go from there.
I won’t argue with that. I am asking specifically how gender plays into that concern … specifically. The greatest “group-think” requires total equality - no gender distinction. Is that what you are saying?
Yes. I see what you’re trying to say now… that’s what I’m saying. No flirting or seduction or conspicuous consumption aggression to attract more partners, just earning the right to select partners based upon a merit system that people are always going to be trying to cheat on, so you have to make the incentive system very high for people to encrypt so the cheating doesn’t occur. Actually coming up with this merit solution to fix the species problem is a decryption process, so decryption isn’t always a bad thing, but once you shift reward system to societal contribution, and use sex as the motivational system… you’ll see an explosion of innovation.
Why are you selecting partners if there is no gender? What kind of partners?
Gender is the psychological aspect, sex is the physical difference. Pick whoever you want as long as you have a card for that tier.
One question:
Is the difference between sex and gender already completely hidden behind the English language, namely behind the word "gender"?
I’m not following you. It seems that you are saying that there should be no gender and yet everyone is supposed to select partners based upon some scheme.
More often it is hidden behind the word “sex” when there are more significant distinctions.
Lot’s of people confuse them, but they are technical terms. I always found it annoying that sex also refers to the act of sex, not the physical features of the sex, because of this confusion, I think most people assume that gender is the right word. People can have a psychological baseline and have many different talents and personalities… (gender)
Thus the difference is hidden. … 
Have you ever filled out a form that asked you your gender? Instead of your sex? Like i said, it annoys me that it’s the same word used for intercourse.
It’s being hidden quite intentionally (so as to manipulate it). I am asking if getting rid of gender is a good idea and WHY?
I can’t tell if Ecmandu is saying yes or no.
But assuming that the maximum joy for the greatest length of time, IJOT, is the goal, would it work better to have gender or to not have gender (as is currently intended).
Back in the days when people were more educated honestly, the word gender was not the same as the word “sex” (specifically intercourse). But to accomplish the dictated changes in the world, SEX had to be instigated and kept on all people’s minds as much as possible … SEX … SEX … SEX …!!
People are wanted to confuse them.
How would you exactly define these two different words and concepts: “sex” and “gender”?
Perhaps you’re on to something in the first part James, perhaps even the second part. My point about gender however, is that you can have the same psychological base and have tremendous difference in talent, ability and personality, so there is still quite a bit enough diversity, enough to keep the innovation engine running, while keeping the species peaceful. Gender interferes with this. So no, I don’t think there should be gender to that regard. I’m not saying “yeah gender”. Gender is rotting this world, and probably would any world.