The Interface Theory of Perception: Natural Selection Drives True Perception To Swift Extinction
The “interface theory of perception” informs us that increased perception is not always beneficial. A mosquito or other insect has just enough sensory ability as it needs to detect the objects it can feed upon (example: detect heat of warm-blooded animals it can sting). Increasing it’s visual sensitivity to that of an eagle would not result in increased surviveability, as it can already detect the objects it needs just fine. It would vastly decrease its fitness though because of the increased cost associated with maintaining such complex organs. It’s similar with operating systems on our computers: we don’t want to see the zeros and ones going through our CPU registers, we want to see an abstract view of them through windows and buttons we can click. This view is technically less accurate, but more desirable for us. Humans parse not only sensory perception in this manner, but also truth. The vast majority of the population cannot parse logical statements truthfully, and are instead guided by external memeplexes to parse them through consensus filters. This is the result of oversocialization. High test high IQ functional autists are the category of individuals most resistant to this.
People who can’t defend themselves physically (women and low T men) parse information through a consensus filter as a safety mechanism. They literally do not ask “is this true”, they ask “will others be 0K with me thinking this is true”. This makes them very malleable to brute force manufactured consensus; if every screen they look at says the same thing they will adopt that position because their brain interprets it as everyone in the tribe believing it. Only high T alpha males and aneurotypical people (hey autists!) are actually free to parse new information with an objective “is this true?” filter. This is why a Republic of high status males is best for decision making. Democratic, but a democracy only for those who are free to think.