Author: Curt Doolittle

  • (Domain transfer compete. We now own “www.aristocratia.com”. All I need now is t

    (Domain transfer compete. We now own “www.aristocratia.com”. All I need now is time to work on it and get others involved.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-15 11:26:00 UTC

  • ADVICE TO THE YOUNG (WOMEN): CHOOSING DEGREES FOR LIFETIME HAPPINESS Don’t pay c

    ADVICE TO THE YOUNG (WOMEN): CHOOSING DEGREES FOR LIFETIME HAPPINESS

    Don’t pay college tuition for trade school education. Get a major in something that is the maximum extent of your abilities, and then minor in or take basic courses in your trade.

    In this case I’m referring to a young relative of mine that I love who is too smart for the career she has targeted. I would suggest that if you are a woman and can handle the nursing curriculum then whether or not you choose to be a nurse you can always downgrade if you can’t hack the program. If you do hack it, the entire healthcare field is open to you. Furthermore you can get an advanced degree such as Nurse Practitioner, and and within this generation, nurses will approach doctor salaries. NP is a great career for a smart woman who wants to participate in care-taking fields.

    I will also put out that when you are a young woman you are probably very ignorant about the world, and certainly too ignorant of the world to know in high school what career you should follow. And to make matters worse, you also have raging hormones in your body making you extremely sensitive to care-taking stimuli. By the time you are in your late twenties to mid thirties these hormones will decline in influence and you will care very much more that you are working with people who think about the world the way that you do, and are interesting than you will about care taking of yet another of the same problems that you have seen a thousand times. You can let your hormonal influences in youth determine your mid and late life circumstances, but if you do you will end up as one of the many unsatisfied people in the world who dreams of being what else she could have been.

    In general if you want to have the most fulfilling life, you should always try to operate at the limits of your ability, and associate with people at that same limit. You will constantly make each other better. If you associate with people who have 95-105 IQ’s they are ‘normal’, but if you associate with people 105-115, it’s a very different world you will live in. For example, in the medical field, doctors are usually above 125, and often much higher, while almost all workers in medical administration and service are below 100. If you want to know why doctors act the way they do it’s because it’s very frustrating to talk to people more than 15 points different from you. You don’t see it usually in your education system, but as you mature, you rapidly understand that at 15 points is a standard deviation, and that our social classes (if not our economic classes) are structured by IQ, and that it is much more rewarding for you to work with the people at the top of your spectrum rather than with people below it.

    Next, in the same vein, when you are young, and female (with lower dominance than males) the idea of managing people is harder to imagine than doing a job that does not require a lot of collaboration. But if you are smart, then the only rewarding job as you mature is that which requires a lot of collaboration. If you are smart enough that bad customer service, organizational disorder and inefficiency bother you, and wise enough to understand that people must do things differently because they are each equipped differently, then it is wise to look at careers with management responsibility.

    If you don’t like what this says to you then I am sorry for you – because life will teach you this lesson even if you do not want to learn it. Associate with the best people you can. That means the people who constantly challenge you to improve yourself. You will make them better and they will make you better.

    The opposite is also true. If you associate with people less able than you are, in a career that is less challenging than you are capable of, you will be both socially and occupationally bored, and constantly frustrated by what you see as pervasive incompetence and error. And you will rapidly find yourself a prisoner of that little world in which you have walled yourself.

    Money is not everything. Once you make over 60K, happiness does not improve – you just buy more expensive houses, cars, clothes, and ‘stuff’. But this is a misleading statistic. Because once you make over say, 90K, the quality of people you associate with on a daily basis increases dramatically. Fulfillment in life comes from your family, your friends, but the people you spend the most time with are those at your work. So just as you would be careful with friends, careful selecting a mate, it is wise to be careful selecting a line of work where you are with people who fulfill you rather than frustrate you.

    If you are smart – smart enough to graduate in the upper 10 or 20% of your class, make sure that you are not consigning yourself to your parent’s social class, and the kinds of careers that are easily understood among your family, friends and associates. If you live in NYC or SF you are more aware of the many careers available. If you live in a small town somewhere rural you are not. It helps to read help wanted advertisements in big cities if you want to understand the world. Employment offers are the map of the world as it is. Whatever people tell you is largely mythology.

    So my advice to everyone at every level of ability is to shoot for the most complex degree in one of the most complex fields with the greatest quantitative demands that you can handle. And to consider trade school your last option. You can always switch from harder degree to less hard degree. But if you work hard you will not. But if you are going to pay that much money for an education, do not pay for trade school expecting a college education. It’s a recipe for debt and an unsatisfying life.

    Affections.

    Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-15 10:47:00 UTC

  • CONTRA JAN LESTER’S THEORY OF LIBERTY? I AM NOT SURE YET. (edited and expanded f

    CONTRA JAN LESTER’S THEORY OF LIBERTY? I AM NOT SURE YET.

    (edited and expanded for clarity)

    The history of the term liberty and corresponding concept of liberty is what it is. The history of property is what it is. The history of law is what it is. The history of cooperation, family and production are what they are. The history of criminal, unethical and immoral behavior are what they are. We define these terms many ways but the common element that they share is the prohibition on free riding (morality) or the prohibition on involuntary transfer (various forms of fraud and indirection), and prohibitions on the imposition of costs (various forms of crimes against life and property).

    The only difference between the criminal, ethical, and moral spectrum, and the historical definition of liberty, is whether the actions are criminal, unethical, and immoral violations precipitated by non-government actors against whom we can retaliate or request resolution of the dispute, OR whether they are precipitated by members of the monopoly we call bureaucracy, government and state, against whom we cannot retaliate.

    We can define liberty as it has been throughout time (freedom from governmental interference in our thoughts, actions, relations and property.) I think attempting to redefine it is merely an attempt at verbalism. Rationalism has nothing to add but justification.

    At this point, I am still stuck with the same problem I have been since Lee Waaks suggested Jan Lester’s work to me: that I see that he has correctly identified the causal property of morality as imposed costs. (But costs imposed against what?) But that I don’t really see that his ‘theory of liberty’ holds any meaning or if it’s an empty verbalism (confusion and conflation). But then again, I am not sure that I understand his point.

    For example, I think this is a nonsensical statement: Lester’s theory of liberty –“is pre-propertarian because we need a theory of liberty *before* we can know how society should be “arranged” to maximize liberty.”–

    That’s like saying we need the head of a coin before we can have a tail of it. It’s not possible. You cannot have a coin with one side anymore than you can have good without evil, morality without property, and liberty without a state.

    We evolved property prior to government and the state – we had to. Otherwise cooperation is not evolutionarily beneficial but parasitic. Which is why our instincts and cognitive biases are so exaggerated in such cases.

    Liberty cannot exist without government – only morality can – unless you are redefining liberty as morality. Which I suggest that he is doing as a word game to avoid addressing that morality and property evolved prior to the state, and as such prior to liberty.

    Liberty is a state in which we experience the the absence of immoral action by state actors, just as a condition of morality is the a state in which we experience the absence of immoral action by non-state actors. Immorality and morality are instinctual biases that evolved along with cooperation. Immorality and Morality can and must refer to in-group actors violating the necessary terms of cooperation: the prohibition on parasitism (imposed costs, free-riding, involuntary transfer).

    In order to state a cost is something to bear, we must state what it is bears the cost. We cannot bear a cost unless we possess property. We may, prior to the state, define property normatively rather than legally, and we may not even produce a name for it (although all languages I know of contain the idea of possession) but legal definitions again exist post-government and post-state, but property exists prior to state, or cooperation is not possible – and it clearly has been.

    I am fairly sure this set of assertions is irrefutable. Which is why I assume that I do not understand Lester’s argument. Otherwise I would outright criticizing him for empty verbalism – word games, if not simply conflation and confusion.

    It is unscientific of me to assume I am correct, and that he errs, rather than to assume I fail to understand. However, logic and evidence are what they are: unless he can answer this objection he is using rationalism for precisely the reasons I am trying to reform the use of rationalism in politics and ethics: because it is too easy to employ rationalism as a means of obscurantist justification of presumed conclusions. Actions (operations) are the only means of avoiding word games. It is still surprising to me that a theory of human action should be expressed in rationalism, the purpose of which, as far as I know, is, and always has been, justification.

    His argument, at least in my current state of ignorance, appears to be a series of errors of verbalism, and my criticism remains: that there is nothing to be had here other than that he has correctly identified morality and is merely confusing morality with liberty, where morality must, as property must, be antecedent to any concept of liberty. I mean must, as in it is impossible otherwise.

    The question is not liberty but morality. How do we get state actors to act morally?Otherwise the properties of individual moral action and the properties of state action are not identical. Since the state consists of individuals this seems illogical, and therefore a mere verbalism.

    Maybe I don’t understand. Maybe there is something I don’t see. I just think it is unlikely. I am pretty sure my arguments are bulletproof (as usual lol).


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-15 09:57:00 UTC

  • ON SILICON VALLEY BUST —“Right now you’ve got private companies raising $200,

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/venture-capitalist-sounds-alarm-on-silicon-valley-risk-1410740054GURLEY ON SILICON VALLEY BUST

    —“Right now you’ve got private companies raising $200, $400, $500 million. If you’re in a competitive ecosystem and you raise that amount of money, the only way you use it—because these companies are all human-based, (they’re not, like, building stores)—is to take your burn up. … And I guarantee you two things: One, the average burn rate at the average venture-backed company in Silicon Valley is at an all-time high since ’99 and maybe in many industries higher than in ’99. And two, more humans in Silicon Valley are working for money-losing companies than have been in 15 years, and that’s a form of discounted risk. … In ’01 or ’09, you just wouldn’t go take a job at a company that’s burning $4 million a month. Today everyone does it without thinking.”—

    Well, I have been through the 69, 73, 81, 91, 01, and 07 cycles as a youth through my business-owning parents, a young entrepreneur, and a mature entrepreneur. I have ‘muscle memory’ – I have not forgotten these experiences. And I am highly sensitive to the effect on businesses (my own included) of overheated markets, which, as Gurley states, drive up costs (rents in San Francisco), as well as the impact on myths (“Startups do this so we should too”).

    Although as an Austrian (Hayekian, not Misesian), I also understand that some of these misallocations of capital distort the labor market in positive ways such as encouraging the education of and attracting engineers, while in other cases they are negative, such as attracting men to home construction (which is enjoyable but unskilled labor) instead of skilled labor which may be less enjoyable but is both independently sustainable, and internationally competitive. Once a man loses the opportunity to enter a field at a young age he can never recover it.

    I am hoping to do a capital rase in 2015, and this overheated market is making me very nervous about selling into a cold investment cycle. On the other hand, I built a business wherein all I will ask of investors is to fund going to market, not research and development. And I have intentionally engineered the organization to operate on eastern european costs, rather than San Francisco costs. As such it will be impossible for us to burn money at San Francisco rates (the $4m a month number Gurley refers to). Human capital and physical plant costs are just not the same here, and the distribution of our product (as Atlassian has demonstrated) is not one that requires a large sales force. Yes, Oversing, for any large organization, may require some consultation, consisting mostly of configuration and training, but that is also a benefit, because services in the ERP space are highly profitable. It is hard to invest in service organizations but very easy to invest in combined product and service organizations. So hopefully, even if I have played the cycle poorly by expecting to be done with version one earlier than I thought, I think we should be fine. I mean, at the top end, we will burn in a year what a lot of startups are burning in a month, and our potential for success is reasonably ascertainable, and the exit strategy is obvious and controllable.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-15 09:29:00 UTC

  • American in-group dating bias is up about 25% or more this year, (or conversely,

    American in-group dating bias is up about 25% or more this year, (or conversely, out-group dating is down) and the spread continues to expand. The exception being Asian women for both white and asian men, and white men in general. The numbers are distorted believe it or not by lower dislike of blacks by whites than dislike of blacks by asians and latinos. I’m getting most of this second and so I haven’t seen the data. And what I suspect, is that the numbers are being driven largely by increases in Latino and Asian populations on the west coast, both of which demonstrate more stratification in mating preferences than whites. But net of the data trend is that we overwhelmingly mate in-group.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-15 07:34:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/books/review/francis-fukuyamas-political-order-and-political-decay.html?_r=0


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-14 17:03:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/the-geography-of-genius


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-14 16:53:00 UTC

  • Reading violence and social orders. And I am getting so angry that I want to bur

    Reading violence and social orders. And I am getting so angry that I want to burn the book.

    To create an “impersonal order” one requires a military – since only impersonal militaries can compete, the military that survives produces impersonality. This means more successful militaries produce impersonality.

    But since we also require extremely limited rents, to provide the incentives to members for an impersonal military, and against a profiteering military which would eradicate impersonality , the militia which supplies its own small arms, is the only means by which an impersonal order can evolve. A small professional warrior class dependent upon a militia provides the balance between the functional necessity of impersonality (meritocracy) and the incentive against re-personalizing for the purpose of rent seeking.

    From the military one needs to produce judges. Societies that do not produce impersonal judges, are those that do not produce impersonal militaries.

    This is why so few states developed impersonality. And by consequence equality under the law and limited corruption.

    Now, a society that can evolve some set of affairs is different from one that can choose to intentionally implement a state of affairs.

    If a group of individuals can hold military power sufficient to construct a body of law defending private property; train a staff of lawyers and judges and sheriffs (police) to operate the courts.

    These individuals can be fully aware that they are constructing impersonality in their societies. And the heroic, status, and monetary incentives will provide all that is necessary as long as, like the army, their peers do as well.

    Truth and transparence are martial virtues and only martial cultures develop them.

    As far as I know, this is an iron law if social orders.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-14 09:43:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a photo

    Curt Doolittle shared a photo.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-14 09:43:00 UTC