I've been doing research into game theory and applying it to morality, even the universe as a whole. You can understand the world in terms of self-interest. Cooperation is seen as the most beneficial over long periods of time, but this is only because of the threat of retaliation when acting selfishly. If you had the power to control the other side, acting selfishly would by definition be the winning strategy, while altruism and mutual backstabbing are always bad strategies.
So to get the most of what we want, we should be selfish, but use collectivism as a means to the end. This is why National Socialism works, but International Socialism does not. Even altruistic philosophies have to resort to coercion to maintain rule (Hell in religion, totalitarianism in Communism). The quest for power is inescapeable. Anyone else thinking this way?
I've been doing research into game theory and applying it to morality, even the universe as a whole...
No I just take everything and leave nothing anything else is fake and gay
>Threat of retaliation
>Even altruistic philosophies have to resort to coercion to maintain rule
What is more altruistic than killing pedophiles in cold blood? You tell me that you stupid academic cunt.
Can you explain why the line can be drawn at the nation but not the whole world? How large can a nation be before National Socialism doesn't work anymore? If we just established a one world government, would national socialism still be viable?
problem: some men are wicked
solution: live a righteous life
Anything more is vanity.
>How large can a nation be before National Socialism doesn't work anymore
as large as a surname. the most successful nation is Nguyen.
This is why Jews use divide & conquer techniques in the media. They are undoubtedly humanity's most selfish group, so they need to lie, cheat, and deceive the goyim into fighting each other because they know they're powerless against our numbers.
I think you're paying too much attention to the material content vs the spirit of the philosophies. The reason why International Socialism (I.E. Communism) fails isn't solely due to economics, but because it encourages being a pussy. Don't fight for yourself, fight to give to the group selflessly. Meanwhile, National Socialism advocates refining the individual to best serve the group and vice versa. The very name implies the helping of the similar vs the exclusion of the other.
Also, Hitler wasn't necessarily against some "racial rejuvenation" as he called it. Just don't betray your race and who gives a fuck.
Pragmatism is big-brained. A nigget think stealing from his neighbors benefit him, even as it destroys the quality of life for his community. He takes his own lack of understanding ("i dun carrre." "Not my sheit." "He ain me") as truth, and is unable to make a connection between a better life for himself, and the people around him. He is unable to comprehend that, pragmatically, no one wants him around for the same reason he doesnt want people like him around.
This is seen as an "escape of consequence."
Your image illustrates two people who have already acted selfishly, and how they could continue to act most selfishly.
Game theory, or that everyone will act in a way that they would most likely "win" is largely bullshit because the way people understand their "victory" is largely based on how inteligent (or stupid; nigger) they are.
If any group exists outside your cooperation structure and forms its own cooperative interests, it will necessarily become your rival. The only cooperative strategy that can persist, therefore, is one that actively destroys all rival cooperation structures that are not compatible with it, and actively purges degenerate elements within its own structure.
"Jewishness" appears to be the only current cooperation structure with power that is pursuing this strategy. I hope they do not win.
what do the numbers mean?
Based dropbear survivor.
>as large as a surname. the most successful nation is Nguyen.
This is meaningless. Most feudal civil wars were the result of distant family members arguing over who was the legitimate heirs.
>Encourages being a pussy
How so? And if you view all people regardless of race as "similar", why can't this same logic of "refining the individual to best serve the group" apply?
Lastly, you mentioned nationalism (i.e. which nation state you belong to) but now we're talking about race (i e. what you look like). Do you view legal immigrants as members of a nationalist movement?
academic cunts deserve to be shot.
99% of "academics" are midwits who publish shit just to stay alive
>what do the numbers mean?
this
I've had similar thoughts when trying to find a more grounded basis for morality, if you think of it as emotional and instinctual impulse that evolved over time, it's because it had benefit.
This is why early evolutionary biologists found altruism hard to explain, why that might evolve in a selfish system. It's because you share some commonality of genes with your relatives and to some degree your community. It's environments that express selection pressure on evolving systems, but as human society flourished more of your environment was other people. Moral instincts that lowered the amount of internal social friction in a society or civilization gave them better survival chances when they warred with other civilizations, a strong coherent and mutually respectful society will be more organized and efficient, and will have higher trust and thus lower transaction costs. And they can engage in win/win behaviour where there's a net positive outcome in transactions, rather than win/lose where outcomes are awful.
Prisoners dilemma isn't great for social models because there's no real win/win condition in the thought experiment, it's all lose (or at best neutral) so there's no real incentive to be altruistic.
Years they will get in prison.
They committed a crime together. If prisoner B doesn't confess, but A betrays him, they let A off with 0 years in prison while B will get 10.
If they both confess, each gets 5 years.
If they both stay silent, they get 2 years each.
The numbers indicate sentence length adjustments for the 2 prisoners.
thanks
I've done this for years. The thing about optimizing life is 1: You ignore a LOT of noob traps. 2: There isn't much left after.
For instance, it is very rare that a person - any person, is objectively more valuable than even cheap Chineseium shit. This is because the thing will perform its intended function for at least a short time and have a warranty in case it does not at a minimum, whereas people just fail with no safeguards.
>So to get the most of what we want, we should be selfish, but use collectivism as a means to the end.
We should reciprocate when other people were helpful, but we should cut off parasites as soon as they have proven themselves to be such. Sometimes you need to take a chance because you wouldn't be able to extend the people you deal with. Due diligence can reduce the risk to feed parasites when you branch out. Also it is a good idea to gradually increase stake, so for example the first order you make for one less expensive item, then one expensive item, then 10, etc. If the other party decides to become hostile, you wouldn't have lost much compared to the profits/benefits you gained overall.
It’s proven by math that OOOOHHHH OOOOOOOHHHHH AAAAAAAAHHHH AAAAAAAAHHHH is the best strategy.
It isn’t psychological projection, it’s math, goy.
Or:
> Wasting most of your life trying to gain attention from others at any cost is selfish.
Or:
> I invent nonsense to invert morality and lack it, so everyone else does too.
You are at the beginning of your journey, bro. The next step is your you to start thinking multidimensionally, in terms of multiple sets, and in terms of externalities. The prisoner's dilemma has only two axes. It is terrifyingly midwit of you to extrapolate to multivariable interactions based upon a binary interaction
> why early evolutionary biologists found altruism hard to explain
Because they were jewish.
On what grounds does any morality stand? If nothing else, this system gives grounds based on material success. It seems most other moral systems are built on pure emotion or dogma.
To put it simply:
Be strong and have healthy competition with those around you, make strong allies, be well together; reject weakness, fight adversity.
Pretty simple stuff... Now how do we fix humans?
That looks retarded a snitch doesn't get away with 0 repercussions.
You are a jew or similar negroid so it’s better to not give you more stuff to use in your tricks.
> oy vey, we are concerned humans trying to bring a more cooperative world where the evil atavistic institutions and behaviors don’t exist anymore * rubs hands *
game theory is a JEWISH invention
> Now how do we fix humans?
Genocide of people who steal and chimpout too much.
Reminder a person is considered a snitch only if he was part of the mafia. Otherwise it’s a victim or bystander.
National socialism scared the jews so much they had to control the movement, coopt and puppet its leadership, and ensure its leader blundered his way to defeat, discrediting the ideology for generations to come
The conclusion I came to is morals are basically just how you feel. Either morality is objective and can be discovered independently which looks like it's wrong, because most objective moral systems rely on scripture or some kind of god for which there's no objective proof. So morality must be subjective feeling, which is going to be mediated by your emotions and moral instincts you have. And because there's variance in people (biology/genes) there's variance in moral judgement. But emotions and instincts are things that evolved over time because they conferred survival and reproduction benefits.