Eisenhower 1952 and Yang 2020 are key precedents for Ruscica 2024
Summary (details follow)
Similar to my focus on said threat to many/most people (T2M), Yang’s 2020 campaign focused on the threat to jobs posed by AI, robotics and associated/complementary technologies.
Eisenhower’s 1952 campaign provides indicators that I can IMPROVE on Yang’s 2020 performance.
Re: Yang 2020
From 2021 book Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy, by 2020 presidential candidate Andrew Yang:
“I had raised a couple hundred thousand dollars from friends and family at the end of 2017 in order to launch . . .”
“The initial incarnation of my [Yang 2020] ‘team’ consisted of zero political professionals. Instead, it was a handful of young people crazy enough to join the presidential campaign of an anonymous entrepreneur.
. . . [O]ur little ragtag campaign would go on to raise tens of millions of dollars from hundreds of thousands of donors, outcompete the campaigns of five senators, six members of Congress, and the mayor of New York City, and get hundreds of thousands of votes nationwide . . .”
Re: Yang’s campaign focused on the threat to jobs posed by AI, robotics and associated/complementary technologies
From Forward:
“Becoming the Paul Revere of automation—and figuring out what to do about the problem—were daunting challenges . . .”
“My campaign wasn’t successful—I’m not the president obviously—but most people agree that we succeeded in putting universal basic income, once considered a quixotic idea, onto the national political radar. Today 55 percent of Americans agree that we should pass universal basic income.”
From Yang’s 2018 book The War on Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income Is Our Future:
I am writing from inside the tech bubble to let you know that we are coming for your jobs.
I recently met a pair of old friends for drinks in Manhattan. One is an executive who works at a software company in New York. They replace call center workers with artificial intelligence software. I asked her whether she believed her work would result in job losses. She responded matter-of-factly, “We are getting better and better at things that will make large numbers of workers extraneous. And we will succeed. There needs to be a dramatic reskilling of the workforce, but that’s not going to be practical for a lot of people. It’s impossible to avoid a lost generation of workers.” Her confidence in this assessment was total. The conversation then quickly shifted to more pleasant topics.
I later met with a friend who’s a Boston-based venture capitalist. He told me he felt “a little uneasy” about investing in software and robotics companies that, if successful, would eliminate large numbers of jobs. “But they’re good opportunities,” he noted, estimating that 70 percent of the startups he’s seeing will contribute to job losses in other parts of the economy.
In San Francisco, I had breakfast with an operations manager for a large tech company. He told me, “I just helped set up a factory that had 70 percent fewer workers than one even a few years ago would have had, and most of them are high-end technicians on laptops. I have no idea what normal people are going to do in a few years.”
Normal people. Seventy percent of Americans consider themselves part of the middle class. Chances are, you do, too. Right now some of the smartest people in the country are trying to figure out how to replace you with an overseas worker, a cheaper version of you, or, increasingly, a widget, software program, or robot. There’s no malice in it. The market rewards business leaders for making things more efficient. Efficiency doesn’t love normal people. It loves getting things done in the most cost-effective way possible.
A wave of automation and job loss is no longer a dystopian vision of the future—it’s well under way. The numbers have been telling a story for a while now that we have been ignoring. More and more people of prime working age have been dropping out of the workforce. There’s a growing mass of the permanently displaced. Automation is accelerating to a point where it will soon threaten our social fabric and way of life.
Experts and researchers project an unprecedented wave of job destruction coming with the development of artificial intelligence, robotics, software, and automation. The Obama White House published a report in December 2016 that predicted 83 percent of jobs where people make less than $20 per hour will be subject to automation or replacement. Between 2.2 and 3.1 million car, bus, and truck driving jobs in the United States will be eliminated by the advent of self-driving vehicles.
. . . Automation has already eliminated about 4 million manufacturing jobs in the United States since 2000 . . .
. . . Soon, these difficulties will afflict the white-collar world. It’s a boiling pot getting hotter one degree at a time. And we’re the frog.
Re: Eisenhower’s 1952 campaign provides indicators that I would IMPROVE on Yang’s 2020 performance
— Summary (details follow) —
Dwight Eisenhower was elected president in 1952, despite being a political novice.
Eisenhower was elected because he was uniquely qualified to ADVANCE the containment strategy that President Truman had initiated in 1947 to win the Cold War.
My approach to preventing/subduing T2M is a kind of containment strategy.
I’m uniquely qualified to ADVANCE my containment strategy.
Re: Eisenhower was elected president in 1952
From 2018 book Eisenhower: Becoming the Leader of the Free World, published by Johns Hopkins University Press:
Eisenhower swept the [1952] election and pushed the Democratic Party out of the White House for the first time since 1933. Ike brought in 55 percent of the votes and 442 of the nation’s 531 electoral votes.
Re: Eisenhower was a political novice
From Eisenhower: Becoming the Leader of the Free World:
“He and his supporters knew all too well that he had much to learn about leadership in American politics . . .”
“[H]e was a beginner at dealing with wily political opponents, lobbyists, and that part of the media oriented toward either [Republican] Senator Taft [who opposed Eisenhower in the GOP primaries of 1952] or the Democratic Party.”
“Throughout the 1952 campaign against Democrat Adlai Stevenson, however, he was as much a follower as a leader. He still felt like a novice at politics, and he was right.”
“Determined to win, Ike took a crash course in American politics . . .”
Re: Truman’s containment strategy
From 2005 book The Cold War: A New History (my emphases):
Kennan’s “long telegram” became the basis for United States strategy toward the Soviet Union throughout the rest of the Cold War . . . What would be needed, as Kennan put it in a published version of his argument the following year, was a “long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.”
From the entry on containment in the Encyclopedia Britannica:
The policy was implemented in the Truman Doctrine of 1947.
From a 2012 article on the website of The Council on Foreign Relations:
[T]he title of being the most consequential U.S. foreign policy doctrine . . . belongs to the Truman Doctrine . . .
Re: Eisenhower ADVANCED Truman’s containment strategy
From 1998 book Waging Peace: How Eisenhower Shaped an Enduring Cold War Strategy, published by Oxford University Press:
While the cold war originated under Harry S. Truman, it took its mature form under Eisenhower. He developed the first coherent and sustainable cold war strategy suitable for the basic conditions that would prevail during the following decades.
Eisenhower did not inherit such a strategy from Truman. The latter’s containment policy evolved by stages between 1945 and 1953, largely as a reaction to crises . . .
From 2018 book The Age of Eisenhower: America and the World in the 1950s:
Eisenhower spent much of his time forging a global role for the United States. Unlike the isolationist faction in his own party, he believed that to defend freedom and liberty at home, Americans would have to defend these principles overseas as well.
These views did not lead Eisenhower to seek war. On the contrary, he ended active hostilities in Korea, avoided U.S. military intervention in Indochina in 1954, deterred China’s military adventures in the Taiwan Straits in 1955 and 1958, compelled Britain and France to reverse their ill-conceived invasion of Egypt in 1956, and even established stable personal relations with the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. Eisenhower worked hard, and successfully, to keep the peace.
Re: Eisenhower was uniquely qualified to ADVANCE Truman’s containment strategy
From Eisenhower’s 1948 book Crusade in Europe: A Personal Account of World War II:
From 1931 onward a number of senior officers of the Army had frequently expressed to me their conviction that the world was heading straight toward another World War. I shared these views.
Portentously, Eisenhower came to that conviction several/many years before 1931.
From Crusade in Europe:
For three years, soon after the first World War [ended in 1918], I served under one of the most accomplished soldiers of our time, Major General Fox Conner . . . Again and again General Conner said to me, “We cannot escape another Great War[”] . . .
. . . In 1928, I went to serve as a special assistant in the office of the Assistant Secretary of War, where my duties were quickly expanded to include confidential work for the Chief of Staff of the Army.
In these positions I had been forced to examine world-wide military matters and to study concretely such subjects as the mobilization and composition of armies, the role of air forces and navies in war, tendencies toward mechanization, and the acute dependence of all elements of military life upon the industrial capacity of the nation. This last was to me of especial importance because of my intense belief that large-scale motorization and mechanization and the development of air forces in unprecedented strength would characterize successful military forces of the future. On this subject I wrote a number of studies and reports. Holding these convictions, I knew that any sane preparation for war involved also sound plans for the prompt mobilization of industry. The years devoted to work of this kind [i.e., to developing sound plans of said kind] . . .
From 1990 book Eisenhower: Soldier and President:
[O]ne searches in vain for the fitting accolades to acknowledge the accomplishments of Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Second World War—of what he had endured, of what he had contributed to the final victory, of his place in military history.
Fortunately, George C. Marshall, next to Eisenhower himself the man most responsible for Eisenhower’s success, spoke for the nation and its allies, as well as the U. S. Army, when he replied to Eisenhower’s last wartime message, “You have completed your mission with the greatest victory in the history of warfare,” Marshall began. “You have commanded with outstanding success the most powerful military force that has ever been assembled. You have met and successfully disposed of every conceivable difficulty incident to varied national interests and international political problems of unprecedented complications.” Eisenhower, Marshall said, had triumphed over inconceivable logistical problems and military obstacles.
“Through all of this, since the day of your arrival in England three years ago, you have been selfless in your actions, always sound and tolerant in your judgments and altogether admirable in the courage and wisdom of your military decisions. You have made history, great history for the good of mankind and you have stood for all we hope and admire in an officer of the United States Army. These are my tributes and my personal thanks.”
It was the highest possible praise from the best possible source. It had been earned.
. . . He was the most successful general of the greatest war ever fought.
From 2012 book Eisenhower in War and Peace:
When North Korea invaded South Korea in June 1950, the Cold War turned hot, and speculation about Eisenhower’s future occupied the nation’s pundits. American forces were in headlong retreat on the Korean Peninsula, and many wondered how long he would remain on the sidelines.
. . . The combination of the Berlin blockade and the fighting in Korea acted as a spur to the United States and the nations of Western Europe to move forward with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and to establish a military force under NATO’s control. President Truman and the European heads of government believed that only Eisenhower, the supreme commander in World War II, had sufficient credibility to bring those forces into being—and at the same time to be taken seriously by the Soviets. American public opinion was also not convinced that U.S. forces should be sent back to Europe, particularly with the war in Korea, and it would require someone of Ike’s stature to make the case.
. . . In a very real sense, Ike was NATO and NATO was Ike. During his first year in Europe [1951], Eisenhower traveled tirelessly from capital to capital . . .
From 2018 book Eisenhower: Becoming the Leader of the Free World:
By the fall of 1951, Eisenhower’s headquarters had “established a practical command framework, integrated the forces which have already been committed to the Allied Command, initiated necessary training programs, and coordinated such defense plans as could possibly be executed with the limited forces within sight at present.”
From Eisenhower in War and Peace:
[In Fall 1951] Eisenhower met with President Truman at the White House. Truman was also interested in Ike’s plans. After discussing the problems of NATO, the president told Eisenhower that the offer he had made in 1948 was still valid. Truman would bow out if Ike would accept the Democratic nomination in 1952.
Re: Eisenhower was (re-)elected because he was uniquely qualified to ADVANCE Truman’s containment strategy
As is previewed above, Eisenhower had no other qualification to be President.
From The Age of Eisenhower: America and the World in the 1950s (my emphases):
Though voters put Democrats in charge of Congress, they loved Eisenhower: he garnered an astonishing average approval rating of 65 percent during his eight years in office, higher than Ronald Reagan (53 percent) or Bill Clinton (55 percent). More striking, Eisenhower found support in both parties. Over eight years, 50 percent of Democrats approved of his performance. In our more polarized times, such cross-party affinity is rare. On average only 23 percent of Democrats approved of George W. Bush during his eight years in office, while a mere 14 percent of Republicans offered their approval of Barack Obama during his two terms. Eisenhower had that rarest of gifts in politics: he brought Americans together.
Re: my approach to preventing/subduing (PSing) T2M is a kind of containment strategy
See the pdf at ike1952yang2020ruscica2024.substack.com/p/threat-to-many-or-most-people. Excerpt:
Re: a key to providing an ideal carrot re: PSing T2M is leveraging my work that builds on mAIP [i.e., my Amazon-/Microsoft-/VC-praised AI-preneurship] (part 2 of 2)
When Pablo Escobar et al. first felt IMPERILED (see above), Columbia didn’t have a carrot to offer.
Escobar et al. resisted VIOLENTLY (see above), predictably (see above).
Importantly for the U.S. et al. re: PSing T2M, said resisting occurred even though Escobar et al. benefited from a variant of the-enemy-within:
From 2001 book Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World’s Greatest Outlaw:
So in 1991 Columbia provided a carrot: La Catedral.
From 2019 book Manhunters: How We Took Down Pablo Escobar:
We watched it all on TV—the surrender of Pablo Escobar.
None of us saw it coming, and we all took it badly—a crushing blow to our efforts to bring him to justice. It was June 19, 1991, and I was in Medellín, but Toft immediately called me back to Bogotá after the surrender was announced. We all watched the events live at the embassy in stunned silence: the yellow government chopper landing near the ranch-style prison that included a pool, jacuzzi, soccer field, and what we assumed were luxurious accommodations close to Escobar’s hometown of Envigado in the mountains outside Medellín. The sprawling “jail” was housed in the former Rehabilitation Centre for Drug Addicts, renovated to Escobar’s specifications, so spectacular that it was nicknamed La Catedral [my emphasis].
From 2018 book Mrs. Escobar: My Life With Pablo (my emphases):
I started going up to La Catedral several days a week. And while Pablo was meeting with somebody or playing soccer, I’d take the opportunity to organize, rearrange and mend anything in his room that needed attention, but I also looked through the many letters he’d started receiving. They were messages from women all over the world, many of them with photos showing the senders in various poses, many of them naked, and the common denominator was that they were offering themselves to him in exchange for money. I was even more surprised when I read shocking letters from women recalling their recent intimate encounters with him in great detail and inviting him for an encore whenever he wanted; others wrote flowery missives dreaming of another night of passion in La Catedral.
. . . At La Catedral he returned to his old predilection for beauty queens, who visited in droves . . .
Again, psychopathy correlates strongly with hypersexuality.
Continuous improvement of a next-gen variant of La Catedral would require:
ideation (e.g., via CE for people, (CE-for-)AI)
implementation (e.g., via teams formed via a next-gen variant of LinkedIn)
funding (e.g., equity-crowdfunding attracted via startup comedies)
continuous lowering of the perceived-risk of producing improvements (e.g., lower via: 1) strengthening the case that we live (partly) in a simcom, 2) leveraging delegated EWPs)
Maximizing the yield from said continuous improvement would require:
Ps’ awareness (e.g., via comedies)
Ps’ confidence that they won’t be bait-and-switched (e.g., confidence via said parallels between me and a historical figure that strengthen the simcom case)
Key reasons that MPS’s [i.e., my planned startup’s] variant of La Catedral (MLC) would be popular with (al)most (all) non-Ps:
Beyond pairing Ps at MLC, MPS would make maximum use of sex workers (e.g., by paying them WELL via leveraging EWPs* to claw back “profits” from HF [e.g., huge fraud that has been (de facto) legal]; by providing them with valuable showcasing** on comedies).
If MPS exhausted its “supply” of Ps and sex workers, it would leverage EWPs to draft/enlist the children (18+ y.o.) of HF-profiteers (for details, see youinsimulation.substack.com/p/part-2; in particular, the section titled Re: some/many people might perceive PsL&E as another parallel of said kind).
* From a 2019 article in The Atlantic:
The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—more than 100 special provisions become available to him . . . For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to . . . freeze Americans’ bank accounts [my emphasis].
** From 2020 book Camming: Money, Power, and Pleasure in the Sex Work Industry, published by NYU Press:
[O]f all the models in the sample who have earned $10,000 in any month camming, there was not one who had been camming for less than a year. Alicia once earned $54,000 in one month and averages $11,000 a month; she has been camming for seven years. Quinn, who one month earned $50,000 and averages $5,000 a month, has cammed for five years. Tanya once earned $25,000 in a month and usually makes $10,000 a month; she has worked as a cam model for over eight years . . . [E]xtremely high wages occurred but disproportionately went to full-time cam models who have worked in the industry for long periods of time and who labored incredibly hard to build popular brands.
Re: MPS’s comedy re: MLC would be popular with Ps, via youinsimulation.substack.com/p/re-prc-etc-part-2:
Re: “REWARD Ps [for entering MLC voluntarily]”
Keywords: for each of us (e.g., non-Ps like me), maximizing the amount of time we’re in a flow state is a key to thriving amid “superstar-biased technological change” (e.g., amid “winner-take-all” markets); often, flow via collaboration— “group flow”—sparks romantic attraction; keeping collaborators happy . . . polyamory . . . ; human society is a type of “complex adaptive system”; CASs generate “order-for-free” (OFF) at “the boundary between order and chaos”; variant of OFF that seems very likely to emerge soon, partly/largely via group flow and MPS: orgies-for-free (O-F-F); women-FRIENDLY almost certainly; re: w-F and “seems very likely”: 1) “new science” re: “women, lust and infidelity,” 2) women are ~60% of recent college grads in many countries (e.g., the U.S.), so MPS has to be w-F, 3) women can invest B-B-BILLION$ via crowd-investing (e.g., via equity-crowdfunding) . . .
— Re: MANY orgies (will) result from people adapting to said tech-change (i.e., to an evolutionary selection-pressure that’s intensifying rapidly) —
From 2018 book Tell Me What You Want: The Science of Sexual Desire and How It Can Help You Improve Your Sex Life:
I will offer an analysis of the largest-ever survey of Americans’ sexual fantasies . . .
89 percent [of respondents] reported fantasizing about threesomes, 74 percent about orgies, and 61 percent about gangbangs . . . [T]he majority of women reported having each of these sex fantasies . . .
More than three-quarters of the men and women I surveyed hope to eventually act on their favorite sexual fantasies.
Tell Me’s author has a PhD, is a former lecturer at Harvard and is a Research Fellow at the Kinsey Institute.
— Precedent for O-F-F, via humans’ closest primate relative —
From 2018 book Untrue: Why Nearly Everything We Believe About Women, Lust, and Infidelity Is Wrong and How the New Science Can Set Us Free:
[T]he bonobo, with whom we share nearly 99 percent of our DNA . . .
A 2017 study comparing human, chimp and bonobo muscles confirmed what previous molecular research had suggested: “Bonobo muscles have changed the least [from our common ancestor], which means they are the closest we can get to having a ‘living’ ancestor,” according to the research head of the George Washington University Center for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology.
. . . [P]erhaps the most remarkable thing about bonobos . . . Basically, they seem to have sex constantly throughout the day, with just about anybody. Meredith Small reports being in a room of three hundred or so primatologists and journalists of some early footage of bonobos in 1991, before much was known about them. Moments after the film began, the room fell utterly silent as the assembled took in the spectacle of these primates having sex more times and in more positions and combinations than most humans in any culture could even imagine.
. . . [B]onobos have sex to diffuse potential tension—when they come upon a cache of food, for example, or a new bonobo troop, having sex is a way to bond and take the stress level down. Parish pointed out that this was happening as we observed them being fed. Once the food was flung down to them, at least one pair of bonobos began to “consort” immediately. Only then did they get down to the business of eating.
. . .
For much more re: flow science and its centrality to MPS, see my lengthier write-ups linked-to above. Book/magazine excerpts from the write-ups:
From 2021 book The Art of the Impossible: A Peak Performance Primer:
Flow may be the biggest neurochemical cocktail of all. The state appears to blend all six of the brain’s major pleasure chemicals and may be one of the few times you get all six at once.
. . . What we can say for sure: all of these neurochemicals help explain why flow tends to show up when the impossible becomes possible. The reason? It’s because of how these neurochemicals impact all three sides of the high-performance triangle: motivation, learning, and creativity.
On the motivation side, all six of these chemicals are reward drugs, making flow one of the most rewarding experiences we can have. This is why researchers call the state “the source code of intrinsic motivation” and why McKinsey discovered that productivity is amplified 500 percent in flow— that’s the power of addictive, pleasure chemistry [my emphasis].
From 2014 book The Rise of Superman: Decoding the Science of Ultimate Human Performance:
“[T]here are extraordinarily powerful social bonding neurochemicals at the heart of both flow and group flow: dopamine and norepinephrine, that underpin romantic love . . .”
“In jazz, the group has the ideas, not the individual musicians . . . When performance peaks in groups . . . this isn’t just about individuals in flow— it’s the group entering the state together . . .”
From 1997 book Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration, by eminent scholar Warren Bennis:
Great Groups are sexy places.
. . . [During Apple’s early years, Steve Jobs mandated that] employees share [hotel] rooms when they were at conventions and other professional meetings . . . to limit bed-hopping . . .
From the 2017 article in Wired titled “The Ins and Outs of Silicon Valley’s New Sexual Revolution”:
In Silicon Valley, love’s many splendors often take the form of, well, many lovers.
. . . Some workplaces (coughGooglecough) have quasi-official poly clubs . . .
From 2017 book Stealing Fire: How Silicon Valley, the Navy SEALs, and Maverick Scientists Are Revolutionizing the Way We Live and Work:
[W]e crossed the country for a trip to the Googleplex. We were there to talk flow states with engineers . . .
[W]e . . . attend[ed] the opening of their new multimillion-dollar mindfulness center . . . Google had realized that when it comes to the highly competitive tech marketplace, helping engineers get into the zone and stay there longer was an essential . . .
We’ve been collaborating with some of the top experience designers, biohackers, and performance specialists to help develop the Flow Dojo . . . a learning lab dedicated to mapping the core building blocks of optimum performance.
In the fall of 2015 we had the opportunity to bring a prototype of the Dojo to Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters and engage in a joint-learning project. For six weeks, a handpicked team of engineers, developers, and managers committed to a flow training program, and then capped that off with two weeks in a beta version of the training center.
From the chapter titled “Group Flow” in 2017 book Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration:
Patagonia was an early adopter, but soon after, Toyota, Ericsson and Microsoft made flow integral to their culture and strategy.
. . .
Re: the for-free in orgies-for- . . .
— Summary (details follow) —
Order for free is a proposed law of nature, hypothesized at book length in 1993 by a MacArthur Fellow (i.e., a “genius grant” recipient). Believers in the hypothesis include Nobel-Prize winners.
One type of order—complexity [1]—results from “networks of adaptive agents” (e.g., networks of people):
being subjected to selection-pressures that are new and/or are intensifying rapidly
adapting to these pressures
Adaptation that yields/increases complexity occurs at the boundary between order and chaos (i.e., in complex adaptive systems, agents are clustered at and around said boundary).
This clustering takes shape “for free” via “self-organized criticality” [2].
All told, complexity-for-free is shorthand for ‘complexity via adaptation via clustering-for-free’ [3].
Orgies-for-free (O-F-F) is a variant of clustering-for-free that will (continue to) enable people to adapt to selection-pressures of said kinds.
[1] From a 2013 article on ScientificAmerican.com:
[Stephen] Hawking was asked what he thought of the common opinion that the twentieth century was that of biology and the twenty-first century would be that of physics. Hawking replied that in his opinion the twenty-first century would be the “century of complexity” [my emphasis].
Title of a 2005 book published by Harvard Business School Press:
Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics
Title of a 2014 book published by Oxford University Press:
Complexity and the Economy
[2] From 1996 book How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality:
The system had become “critical”! There were avalanches of all sizes just as there were clusters [my emphasis] of all sizes at the “critical” point for equilibrium phase transitions.
[3] From How Nature Works:
Self-organized criticality is so far the only known general mechanism to generate complexity.
. . .
Re: O-F-F would be women-FRIENDLY almost certainly
— Summary (details below) —
The link between professional success and polyamory is unlikely to favor a particular gender.
A key to popularizing Adver-ties [i.e., MPS’s LinkedIn variant] is facilitating the build-out of complements.
OSG’s [i.e., MPS’s] facilitating will center on advancing “hyper-specialization,” for reasons explained by complexity science (i.e., this facilitating will center on speeding the complexification of the business ecosystem that centers on Adver-ties).
Some/many of the hyper-specialists in said ecosystem can be expected to make flowmantic orgies women-FRIENDLY (i.e., can be expected to compete to make said orgies entirely civilized, increasingly artful, etc.). This can be expected in LARGE part because:
Amazon of CE . . . via popularizing Adver-ties . . .
Women are ~60% of recent college grads in many countries (e.g., the U.S.).
Women can invest B-B-BILLION$ via crowd-investing (e.g., via equity-crowdfunding).
So Amazon of CE via making Adver-ties POPULAR with women . . .
OSG could employ/REWARD specialists who make flowmantic orgies women-FRIENDLY (e.g., employ via raising equity-crowdfunding from MANY women).
— Re: the link between professional success and polyamory is unlikely to favor a particular gender —
From Untrue: Why Nearly Everything We Believe About Women, Lust, and Infidelity Is Wrong and How the New Science Can Set Us Free:
[A] 2017 study shows that among women aged twenty-five to twenty-nine, group sex and threesome experience equaled that of men the same age, and women were nearly twice as likely to have gone to a dungeon, BDSM, swingers’, or sex party.
Untrue’s author is a woman who has a PhD from Yale and a background in anthropology.
From 2013 book What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire:
[R]ecent science and women’s voices left me with pointed lessons:
That women’s desire—its inherent range and innate power—is an underestimated and constrained force, even in our times . . .
[T]his force is not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety . . .
[O]ne of our most comforting assumptions, . . . that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairy tale.
What’s author is a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine and the author of five books of nonfiction.
From a 2012 book:
The most patient and thorough research about the hook-up culture shows that over the long run, women benefit greatly from living in a world where they can have sexual adventure without commitment . . . and where they can enter into temporary relationships that don’t derail their careers.
To put it crudely, now feminist progress is largely dependent on hook-up culture. To a surprising degree, it is women—not men—who are perpetuating the culture . . .
The book’s author is Hanna Rosin, then a national correspondent for The Atlantic.
From What Do Women Want?:
Terri Fisher, a psychologist at Ohio State University . . . asked two hundred female and male undergraduates to complete a questionnaire dealing with masturbation and the use of porn. The subjects were split into groups and wrote their answers under three different conditions: either they were instructed to hand the finished questionnaire to a fellow college student, who waited just beyond an open door and was able to watch the subjects work; or they were given explicit assurances that their answers would be kept anonymous; or they were hooked up to a fake polygraph machine, with bogus electrodes taped to their hands, forearms, and necks.
The male replies were about the same under each of the three conditions, but for the females the circumstances were crucial. Many of the women in the first group—the ones who could well have worried that another student would see their answers—said they’d never masturbated, never checked out anything X-rated. The women who were told they would have strict confidentiality answered yes a lot more. And the women who thought they were wired to a lie detector replied almost identically to the men.
. . . When Fisher employed the same three conditions and asked women how many sexual partners they’d had, subjects in the first group gave answers 70 percent lower than women wearing the phony electrodes. Diligently, she ran this part of the experiment a second time, with three hundred new participants. The women who thought they were being polygraphed not only reported more partners than the rest of the female subjects, they also . . . gave numbers a good deal higher than the men.
From 2011 book Chick Lit and Postfeminism, published by the University of Virginia Press:
“The overwhelming popularity of chick lit . . . can be traced to the social reality of its readership with regard to work . . . [Via chick lit’s] attempts at synthesis of work and love it shows the challenges of straddling both realms.”
“One of chick lit’s contributions as a genre is the production of what we might call a sexual theory of late capitalism . . .”
“The high number of sexual partners the chick lit protagonist experiences parallels the romance’s pattern of the questing hero’s confronting false or impostor versions of his eventual beloved.”
“Though an offshoot of popular romance, chick lit transforms it significantly, virtually jettisoning the figure of the heterosexual [male] hero . . .
Men are not really valued as individuals as much as means to a lifestyle . . .
Even texts that end with marital happiness present a predominantly depressing take on marriage.
. . . Chick lit heroines’ preoccupation with money . . . is normative with recent real-life social science findings: researchers . . . have found that the worst fear for single women . . . is having no money.”
. . .
— Precedent re: specialists who’d make O-F-F women-FRIENDLY —
Cover of a 2007 book:
— End of excerpt from said pdf —
Re: I’m uniquely qualified to ADVANCE my containment strategy
See said pdf. In particular, see pp. 56-68. Related excerpt:
Re: a key to providing an ideal carrot re: PSing T2M is leveraging my work that builds on mAIP (part 1 of 2)
Again, it’s too late to be stealthy/covert re: said PSing.
From my 2021 write-up at comedyvstrump2024.substack.com/p/summary-details (at this CvT24 URL, links can’t be added to the first part of the four-part title below):
My Amazon-/Microsoft-/VC-praised* AI-preneurship and the “simulation argument” indicate a >50% likelihood we live (partly) in a simcom that’ll feature my planned startup’s:
comedy-vs.-Trump-2024 (keywords: particular premi$e; NO COURAGE REQUIRED IF PART OF A SIMCOM; if courage required, might preclude/disrupt competing startups)
startup comedy (keywords: HELP** product-development groups to: 1) raise equity-crowdfunding, 2) spin off; disruptive to Amazon, Microsoft, etc.)
flowmantic comedy (keywords: flow is the state-of-mind that enables top performance/problem-solving; often, “group flow” sparks romantic attraction)
. . .
—————
Summary (12 parts; details follow)
—————
Re: “‘simulation argument’ . . . >50% likelihood”
Title of an October 2020 article on ScientificAmerican.com:
Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are About 50–50
From the Amazon.com page for 2019 book The Simulation Hypothesis:
(More) re: “>50%”: See the 12th part of this summary. Excerpt: “[L]ikelihood that we’re living in ‘base reality’ [i.e., not in a simulation], concluded [Elon Musk, comedy investor and world’s richest person], . . . was just ‘one in billions.’”
Keywords re: comedy-vs.-Trump-2024 (CvT24) might require courage
psychologist Mary Trump’s diagnosis of her uncle; . . . if re-elected, TrumP could leverage emergency powers
. . .
Precedent for CvT24
Bob Hope’s comedy amid Nazi bombing during World War II, en route to Hope becoming in 1944 the most popular entertainer in America
Premi$e for CvT24
Soon, many Ps will want to:
(continue) resist(ing) PsIMP
not resist, in part because my planned startup (MPS) will HELP to:
REWARD Ps who submit to indefinite-detention or an alternate form of threat-neutralization
ADVANCE human-longevity science, and medical research more generally
From 2014 book Ha!: The Science of When We Laugh and Why, by a cognitive neuroscientist (my emphases):
We laugh at what forces us to integrate incompatible goals or ideas . . .
. . . [O]ur brains act by letting ideas compete and argue for attention. This approach has its benefits, such as allowing us to reason, solve problems, and even read books. However, it sometimes leads to conflict, for example when we try to hold two or more inconsistent ideas at once. When that happens, our brains know of only one thing to do—laugh.
. . .
Re: CvT24-in-a-simcom wouldn’t require courage
From 1997 book Story: Style, Structure, Substance, and the Principles of Screenwriting, by Robert McKee (my emphases):
Comedy contains myriad subgenres as well, each with its own conventions, but one overriding convention unites this mega-genre and distinguishes it from drama: Nobody gets hurt. In Comedy, the audience must feel that no matter how characters bounce off walls, no matter how they scream and writhe under the whips of life, it doesn’t really hurt.
. . .
Comedy opener of my first startup comedy (SC; a serial “non-fiction novel” that I’m rewriting)
“Seventeen states,” I said, “have legalized recreational marijuana. A lot of partying happens away from home. Smoking weed gives people the munchies. Many popular night-spots don’t serve food. So there’s a greenfield opportunity at the intersection of mobile storage, weed storage, and food storage. Specifically, an opportunity for OSG [i.e., MPS] to patent my design of clothing-pockets that close via Ziploc.”
Mindy’s eyes widened for an instant. Then her lips formed a thin smile.
“I see you’re worried about developing laugh lines,” I said. “You shouldn’t be. Laugh lines are no match for modern cosmetic surgery. After all, cosmetic surgery is getting so advanced that, soon, it will be a simple matter to make a woman’s face after surgery appear completely different than her face before surgery.”
Then I tried to appear struck by a flash of insight.
“Which means,” I said, “that soon millions of Caucasian women will find it impossible to get a date! Unless . . .”
I picked up the handset of my desk phone, then appeared to dial an extension.
“It has come to my attention,” I said into the handset, “that OSG can profit obscenely by purchasing the rights to develop and market the only DNA test that enables a woman to prove she’s not Lorena Bobbitt!”
Mindy laughed.
I restored the handset to its cradle, then used my laptop. A new presentation slide appeared on the wall-mounted screen:
From a 1978 article in The New Yorker:
“When it comes to saving a bad line, [Johnny Carson] is the master”—to quote a tribute paid in my presence by George Burns.
. . . One sometimes detects a vindictive glint in Carson’s eye when a number of gags sink without risible trace, but [Tonight Show writer Pat] McCormick assures me that this is all part of the act . . .
— End of comedy opener —
. . .
Re: the making of said [i.e., my] business plan and said serial novel
— Summary (details follow) —
In 1985 I learned that I can reliably generate comic insights [1] (e.g., I can write jokes).
That year my focus shifted to developing a likable comic persona. My approach to the developing comprised 3 steps, with a corollary:
S1: Select a problem that’s causing many people a lot of distress.
S2: Try to solve the problem.
S3: Mine the experience for comedy.
C: The more effective I am at solving (part of) the problem, the more likable my persona will be.
The problem I selected was lack of educational/economic opportunity.
In 1992 I gained exposure to the pre-Web Internet.
In 1998 I completed my 1.0 business plan for an online provider of CE and particular complements.
In 2004 I completed my 2.0 plan. Key addition: my Amazon-/VC-praised [2] design [3] of an online market that’ll: 1) provide new and improved ways for influencers (e.g., comedy writers, subject-matter experts) to earn money, 2) yield a next-gen variant of LinkedIn that’ll give rise to MANY flowmances.
In 2006 my focus shifted to leveraging comedy to make my 2.0 plan disruptive [4] (i.e., shifted to developing craft/artfulness in the requisite medium/form/genres [5]).
— Re: [1] (in 1985 I learned that I can reliably generate comic insights) —
More recently, I learned that I have what some neuroscientists call “comedy-writer brain” (e.g., my neuroanatomy includes a “flat” memory hierarchy that enables non-conscious processes of my brain to reliably identify associations that are perceived as very remote by other types of brains).
Re: comedy-writer brain
From Ha!: the Science of When We Laugh and Why:
[I]t’s worth noting that no single brain region is responsible for this type of creativity. One scientific review of seventy-two recent experiments revealed that no single brain region is consistently active during creative behavior. There is, however, something special about people who make novel connections or imagine the unimaginable. What sets them apart is the connectivity within their resting brains. This finding was discovered by a team of researchers from Tohoku in Japan, who observed that people with highly connected brains—as measured by shared brain activity over multiple regions—are more flexible and adaptive thinkers. Connected brains are creative brains.
From 1999 book The Entertainment Economy:
Re: non-conscious processes identifying remote associations
From 2017 book Stealing Fire: How Silicon Valley, the Navy SEALs, and Maverick Scientists Are Revolutionizing the Way We Live and Work:
Carhart-Harris set out to take real-time pictures of the unconscious [using neuroimaging technologies (e.g., fMRI)] and when he did, he saw the unconscious actively hunting for new ideas.
. . .
— Re: [5] (requisite medium/form/genres) —
In 2006—before smartphone apps and equity-crowdfunding—my goal for leveraging comedy was running website-marketing and site-user-showcasing as a profit center.
Keys to maximizing media profits on a risk-adjusted basis: portfolio of media properties; phased investments in production values.
So MPS’s SCs will originate as serial novels, published online.
Equity-crowdfunding was legalized in 2012.
Hence my updated/present conception of SCs . . .
. . .
Re: my focus since 2006 on developing as a serial novelist
Title of a 2007 paper in The Journal of Creative Behavior:
Ten Years to Expertise, Many More to Greatness: An Investigation of Modern Writers
Said expertise equates largely to instincts that, after (~)10 years, have become passably trustworthy.
From 2017 book Before You Know It: The Unconscious Reasons We Do What We Do:
Unconscious decisions tend to be better [than decisions made consciously] when the judgment is complex and many different dimensions or features have to be combined and integrated . . .
To take such full advantage of unconscious help we have to first do the conscious work [e.g., put in said (~)10 years] . . .
From 2017 book Machine, Platform, Crowd: Harnessing Our Digital Future, co-authored by MIT economist Erik Brynjolfsson:
Go is a pure strategy game —no luck involved . . .
[I]t is estimated there are about 2 x 10170 (that is 2 followed by 170 zeros) possible positions on a standard Go board . . .
— End of excerpt from said pdf —
Re: presentation-errors above
From 2012 book APE: Author, Publisher, Entrepreneur—How to Publish a Book, co-authored by Guy Kawasaki, a former chief evangelist at Apple:
Every time I turn in the “final” copy of a book [Kawasaki has (co-)authored twelve books], I believe that it’s perfect. In APE’s case, upward of seventy-five people reviewed the manuscript, and [co-author] Shawn [Welch] and I read it until we were sick of it. Take a wild guess at how many errors our copy editor found. The answer is 1,500. [APE is 410 pages.]
And, of course, I’m preoccupied with PSing T2M . . .