Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • not narcissism. It’s theatre. Sorry but you’re making two catastrophic errors: 1

    http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2014/10/narcissism-hubris-and-success.htmlIt’s not narcissism. It’s theatre.

    http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2014/10/narcissism-hubris-and-success.html

    Sorry but you’re making two catastrophic errors:

    1) that rational argument is persuasive. That leadership of a body of people is rational. Only very naive people who lack experience as leaders make this error. Quite the contrary: mastering delivery, mastering body language. Mastering moral intuitions. Mastering not rhetoric but sermon is both difficult, an art, and mastery of leadership. I would enumerate the reasons why but this is the wrong forum.

    (2) Any reasonable student of Michels, Burnham, or the vast body of data on organisations would remind us of the obvious: that leadership is necessary, and great leaders are in fact worth their high cost to organisations.. Man is a tribal creature and a moral creature. Reason is a thin layer of justification and nothing more. We do not make great organisations by rational argument but by constructing a moral narrative in which all members are heroes.

    Some people should get out more.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-05 16:09:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.salon.com/2014/10/04/atheisms_white_male_problem_a_movement_needs_a_moral_cause_beyond_glamorizing_disbelief/

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-05 15:08:00 UTC

  • RESULTS OF TWIN STUDIES behavioural genetics and twin studies | hbd chick

    http://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/10/05/behavioral-genetics-and-twin-studies/CONFIRMING RESULTS OF TWIN STUDIES

    behavioural genetics and twin studies | hbd chick

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-05 15:00:00 UTC

  • Fixed definition of property: Good enough for people who live in tents. All that

    Fixed definition of property: Good enough for people who live in tents. All that is necessary to keep them living in tents.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-05 12:55:00 UTC

  • You tagged Veronika SergeevnaOct 05, 2012I met V in a club. She can dance like f

    You tagged Veronika SergeevnaOct 05, 2012I met V in a club. She can dance like few women in the world, and she had amazing eyes and unmatched cocky confidence. On a lark, I held up the key to my Porsche, and my old wedding ring, and said “I’ll give you these if you will have my babies.” Which of course, she didn’t buy for a minute, but it was a good line to start with. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-05 12:52:00 UTC

  • EXCEPTION THAT PROVES THE RULE: WASHINGTON’S REVOLVING DOOR OF INCOMPETENCE

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/10/03/why_nobody_in_washington_ever_gets_fired_julia_piersonTHE EXCEPTION THAT PROVES THE RULE: WASHINGTON’S REVOLVING DOOR OF INCOMPETENCE

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-05 11:43:00 UTC

  • WHAT OPERATIONS ARE INVOLVED IN EACH OF THESE PROCESSES? (important) Reacting (t

    WHAT OPERATIONS ARE INVOLVED IN EACH OF THESE PROCESSES?

    (important)

    Reacting (to stimuli)

    Daydreaming

    Thinking

    Reasoning

    Calculating

    Following an Algorithm

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-05 04:53:00 UTC

  • AGGRESSION VS HARM VS COST Sequence: 1 – I have no agreement with you, and there

    AGGRESSION VS HARM VS COST

    Sequence:

    1 – I have no agreement with you, and therefore no constraint.

    2 – I will not aggress against you.

    3 – I will not cause you harm.

    4 – I will not cause you to bear a cost.

    5 – I will bear costs of reciprocal insurance.

    6 – I will bear kin selection costs.

    Aggression leaves open unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial action.

    Harm leaves open the problem of relative costs – and therefore is not an objective and sufficient means of measurement.

    Costs are universally applicable independent of scale, not relative, and prohibit criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial action of all kinds.

    —–

    The fact that so many people are fooled into the fallacy of aggression as sufficient criteria for the formation of a voluntarily organized polity, is evidence of the frailty of rationalism.

    The purpose of rationalism is justification. The purpose of scientific methods is to prevent justification.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-05 04:48:00 UTC

  • Nov 23, 2013

    Nov 23, 2013

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-05 04:46:00 UTC

  • vs Harm vs Cost I have no agreement with you, and therefore no constraint. I wil

    http://justification.th/Aggression vs Harm vs Cost

    I have no agreement with you, and therefore no constraint.

    I will not aggress against you.

    I will not cause you harm.

    I will not cause you to bear a cost.

    I will bear costs of reciprocal insurance.

    I will bear kin selection costs.

    Aggression leaves open unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial action.

    Harm leaves open the problem of relative costs – and therefore is not an objective and sufficient means of measurement.

    Costs are universally applicable independent of scale, not relative, and prohibit criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial action of all kinds.

    —–

    The fact that so many people are fooled into the fallacy of aggression as sufficient criteria for the formation of a voluntarily organised polity, is evidence of the frailty of rationalism.

    The purpose of rationalism is justification. The purpose of scientific methods is to prevent justification.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-04 04:15:00 UTC