Author: Curt Doolittle

  • CULTURAL VARIANTS OF TRUTH AND THE CONSEQUENCES Truth and Adherence to Rules are

    CULTURAL VARIANTS OF TRUTH AND THE CONSEQUENCES

    Truth and Adherence to Rules are two different things. (submission)

    Truth and Fidelity to Contract are two different things.

    Truth and Commitment to Duty are two different things.

    Truth and Knowledge are two different things.

    Truth as Adherence – Familialism (most of the world)

    Truth as Fidelity – Tribalism (judaism)

    Truth as Duty – Nationalism (germans)

    Truth as Science – Universalism. (english)

    That members of a community follow rules and conventions with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another.

    That members of a community fulfill promises or contracts with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another.

    Another community may both fulfill it’s promises, its contracts, and the commitment to tell the truth at all times regardless of cost.

    The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***.

    If you grasp the profundity of this statement you will understand why some cultures produce science, and some produce trade, and some produce tyranny. Some create science. And some create pseudoscience. And some create only order. Some create science, innovation, trade and trust. Others create only trade, and others create only utilitarian applications of tools.

    Small things in large numbers have vast consequences.

    When we use ‘functions” such as the verb to be, or the word ‘truth’ we do not really understand their construction, just that they are shorthand approximations that tend to work. We have just knowledge of use, not knowledge of construction.

    But the word ‘true’ means very different things in different places: science, fidelity, and adherence.

    And the consequences are astounding.

    Truth is a performative declaration. Truth claims then, to different groups, state either epistemology, fidelity, or adherence.

    I have solved the problem you know.

    It’s ethics.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 17:38:00 UTC

  • POLITICAL PREFERENCES ARE GENETIC – YOU DON”T CONVINCE ANYONE. As I’ve been argu

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/opinion/thomas-edsall-how-much-do-our-genes-influence-our-political-beliefs.html?ref=opinion&_r=2&referrerOUR POLITICAL PREFERENCES ARE GENETIC – YOU DON”T CONVINCE ANYONE.

    As I’ve been arguing, since it is impossible to change political preferences, all political debate is wasted. People vote morally. our moral differences reflect our evolutionary strategies. It’s our genes talking to us. And we talk on behalf of our genes. As such all we can do is cooperate on means, not ends. A Democratic government is, unlike the market, a monopoly an a dictatorship. The solution is to allow people to construct exchanges, not to use majority rule. Since that is only a partial solution, the remainder of the problem is only solved by devolving the central government into states or city-states that allow us all to live as we desire, and to have the market reward and punish us for living as we desire.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 16:54:00 UTC

  • IS IMPORTANT NOT BAD Sugar, starch, grains and carbs are. Eat like a cave man. A

    http://shar.es/NmnzyFAT IS IMPORTANT NOT BAD

    Sugar, starch, grains and carbs are.

    Eat like a cave man. All the fresh kill you can get.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 14:38:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY AND HIGHER TRIBALISM Aristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our trib

    ARISTOCRACY AND HIGHER TRIBALISM

    Aristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our tribes, no matter what tribe we belong to. All aristocracy speaks the same language, and all of us can work to better our own tribes with the help of aristocrats from other tribes. We have no false allegiances. We have no political agendas. Our agenda is merely the advancement of the economic status of our tribes. Aristocracy under ‘higher tribalism’ is a very ‘human’ form of government. No ideologies are needed. No justification for and search for power over others is needed. All wee need is do to negotiate on behalf of our tribes large or small. Under democracy our differences are a source of conflict. Under aristocracy our differences are a source of opportunity for mutual benefit. If we are trapped in an agrarian society all that we can really do is improve the land, and fight over the land if we want greater wealth. But under industrial capitalism, we are not constrained by the productivity of our land, but by the productivity of our people. And the productivity of our people is determined by the productivity of our institutions in assisting the people in cooperating, by making possible the voluntary organization of production.

    I would much rather live in a world filled with many enterprising aristocrats feeding off the status given them by their tribes and families, than I would in a world of bureaucrats living off the status obtained by creating conflict using ideology.

    And I am pretty sure that no moral man can justify any other arrangement for any reason other than the selfish accumulation of power, and the power to oppress others to conform to his will.

    All aristocracy requires is the grant of property rights and the reciprocal guarantee of those rights – and a militia consisting of all able bodied men equally willing to guarantee those rights.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 12:31:00 UTC

  • “ONE MINUTE DEBATE MANAGER” The argumentative technique I use, and the one I rec

    “ONE MINUTE DEBATE MANAGER”

    The argumentative technique I use, and the one I recommend, is the ‘One Minute Manager” solution, whereby one responds to aggressive accusations or comments, particularly postmodern and feminist rallying and shaming, with equally loaded criticism and ridicule (albeit intellectualized), and then to return to the central argument.

    This technique lets you continue the rational discussion unburdened by the nonsense now that its emotional content has been cleared, rather than tainting your and response and the central argument.

    So “slap them’ quickly for their bad manners, then return to the central argument.

    If you are consistent in the use of this pattern, it tends to successfully contain all sorts of deceptive debate partners, while demonstrating to them, and to the audience, that you will not be taunted out of the central argument. And it stops your argument from being tainted by their attempt at fraud and distraction.

    It’s just hard, but it works. But then I do this kinda thing for a living.

    Slap quickly in one paragraph. Be truthful that they’re relying on childish techniques reserved for feminists, schoolgirls and betas, and then, start a new paragraph, restate the central argument, and return to conducting the central argument.

    It works. Every time you restate the central argument you draw attention to it and repetition is often the best means of persuasion.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 12:22:00 UTC

  • (Slept only two hours the other night. Trying to make up for it today. Rainy, hu

    (Slept only two hours the other night. Trying to make up for it today. Rainy, humid and hot here. Cant use the AC because it seems to want to undo my asthma treatment, and I just LOVE being able to breathe. Tried a few sketches today [Ayelam always inspires me] but I can’t seem to get out of the fog. It’s like this in the fall in Seattle. The rains start and slowly your brain decays. But the sight of Oversing just rocking today really was beautiful. Blew my mind.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 10:53:00 UTC

  • (sketch) (model) (computer model of polities) The literature of psychology and s

    (sketch) (model) (computer model of polities)

    The literature of psychology and sociology is not just littered, but polluted with the errors of universalism (equality etc). Where it isn’t it’s polluted with socialism or the fallacy of treating non-compliance and conformity as a disease rather than a specialization. So the axis of thought tends to be largely pseudoscientific if not just plain ‘wrong’. You may want to help an individual in terms of diagnoses, but you want to help a culture with an understanding of psychological _supply and demand_.

    ———————–

    Pretty sure this is about right. All can be represented as ‘v’ shaped curves I think, or overlapping bell curves

    1) SOLIPSISTIC – AUTISTIC SPECTRUM

    –FEMININE–

    …………”CRAZY”

    …………SOLIPSISTIC

    …………SENSITIVE

    …………CONSIDERATE

    –NORMAL–

    …………FOCUSED

    …………OCD

    …………ASPIE

    …………AUTIST

    –MASCULINE–

    2) IQ SPECTRUM – VERBAL SPECTRUM and SPATIAL SPECTRUM

    3) IMPULSIVITY SPECTRUM and TIME PREFERENCE SPECTRUM

    4) REPRODUCTIVE DESIRABILITY SPECTRUM and GROUP UTILITY SPECTRUM

    5) FAMILY STRUCTURE SPECTRUM MATERNAL(COLLECTIVE – socialism) and PATERNAL(INDIVIDUAL – property rights)

    6) MILITARY CRITERIA FOR ‘WINNING’ and GEOGRAPHY/TERRAIN SPECTRUM

    That’s a simple model. And I think it’s probably very predictive. I could add geography, and competitors to it and probably produce a wonderful model (simulation) and that would be pretty interesting.

    Be fascinating to start out with different data sets and see what survives to some sort of equilibrium.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 10:49:00 UTC

  • (success story) (oversing performance) We have tried to construct oversing as a

    (success story) (oversing performance)

    We have tried to construct oversing as a next-generation web application that leaves the sort of ‘page’ metaphor behind, and functions more as a desktop app version of Facebook with sales, career management, project management, accounting reporting. And that is a big risk, because the browser is really designed to show static documents, and the DOM is a pretty weak technology for that. But thanks to the guys’ hard work, and innovations in technology we have finally made this terribly data intensive piece of software have desktop performance on that browser UI.

    It’s very fast. Especially when we consider what it’s doing.

    And that means that we have solved, I think, the technological hurdles in bringing Oversing to market for v1.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 10:21:00 UTC

  • THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH – THE CONSEQUENCE OF COLONIALISM It turns out that hones

    THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH – THE CONSEQUENCE OF COLONIALISM

    It turns out that honesty (truth) is the most important political institution, because it permits people to trust, which in turn permits risk taking, which in turn permits capital accumulation, which in turn produces economic velocity, which in turn produces prosperity. You might not think it matters so much, but of all the institutions humans have invented, creating an incentive to tell the truth is perhaps the hardest one. And while we in the west, particularly the anglo-germanic west, take it for granted that telling the truth is ‘good’ in some sort of civic or spiritual way, the fact of the matter is that the rest of the world, outside of christendom, not only does not think that way but does not feel that way either.

    Truth is a ‘universalist’ good. Only westerners are more universalist than familial or tribalist. We are the only people to have done it. We stomp around the world with our suicidal universalism promoted as a spiritual good, rather than contract and rule of law that hold us accountable for trades. It is quite possible to construct enforceable contracts as long as the language facilitates it,and by using an alternative language if not, and from the habit of rule of law, property rights, and enforceable contracts, an upper commercial class will form from the wealth generated by using them. Others, seeking entry into the commercial class and its resulting wealth, will adopt the behavior, and this becomes an upper class norm that people must demonstrate in order to participate in economic prosperity, and failure to participate in that norm will leave one in poverty.

    Our civilization evolved truth telling first, because of our tactics in war. But most civilizations must have a reason to evolve property, truth telling, and therefore trust.

    But just because a civilization evolves a normative technology, does not mean that the institutions that perpetuate that technology cannot be spread. They can. Anything that enforces a norm, can be used to instill a norm.

    The technology to export around the world was (a) title registry – ie property rights. (b) contract law (c) trial by randomly selected jury (d) juridical (law) universities, with extraordinary performance requirements rather than recitation. One can use recitation of facts with those who already understand the norms, but one cannot instill facts dependent upon norms that do not exist.

    For these reasons, democracy was damaging to societies. One can administer a territory in whatever way necessary for the production and service of the commons. And a leader can certainly seek rents this way, and not be threatened by commercial activity. But the means by which one conducts commerce via property law has nothing to do with that, and as such, there is no need for property rights and law to be part of the government – instead property law constructs the institutional means of cooperating within society itself, independent of government. Government need do nothing about it, except not to interfere.

    Judges resolve disputes based upon property rights. Advocacy is for the church. Administration of the commons for the government. Mixing the three functions Commerce, Culture and Commons is a recent mistake even in our western cultures – the church, law and state must be independent creatures to keep each other from excessive rents.

    We really screwed up the world. We gave them science, accounting, medicine and law, and the moral charter to service the population. But we also gave them democracy, which is dangerous luxury good. And we did not give them the means of producing the common law, which is the first NECESSARY good.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 10:20:00 UTC

  • "Consensus, Intent, Taboo and Sacred" VS "Incentives and Institutions" : Another Inequality.

    CONSENSUS, INTENT, TABOO AND SACRED VS INCENTIVES AND INSTITUTIONS : ANOTHER INEQUALITY (very good piece) [W]e humans are usually much happier once we figure out that “consensus and intent” are possible only for small groups, and beyond that scale we must construct protocols (processes) and incentives (information) via institutions (formal institutions) such that it is unnecessary for individuals to constantly exist in conflict between incentives for self interest and the goals of the organization and the polity. There are certain “taboos and sacredness” that it is possible to instill pedagogically. But the more rational and educated the human the less taboos can be used to restrain him from making exceptions that he can justify by his reason. The lower the intelligence of individuals, the more they rely upon intuition, upon the information that they obtain from others, and upon intuitions of ‘sacred and taboo’. So the more educated the populace, the more complex the division of knowledge and labor, the more necessary are incentives and institutions and the lower value there is to “consensus, intent, sacredness and taboo”. We require formal institutions. The pricing system is our most important formal information system. It tells us everything we need to know about our condition related to that of others, and tells us what we we should be doing to serve others whether we want to do it, or can do it, or not. It is our most important information system. Morality and ethics captured in the law prohibits a spectrum of “free riding” (the violation of the contract for logical participation in cooperation) from the criminal, to the ethical, to the conspiratorial, to the moral. We are left to our own devices to prevent conquest. Army, Religion and Credit are our most common defenses. The failure of the sentimental, lesser mind, is not to grasp this basic spectrum whereby humans are materially unequal in their abilities an there frames of reference, and therefore in their means of action. The lower you are on the scale, the more consensus, intent, taboo, and sacred, and the more you depend upon others for knowledge necessary for action. The higher you are on the scale the more you depend on reason, incentives, justification, institutions and abstract information to make your decisions independently of those who rely upon their peers. This pattern means that the exceptional people are always trying to outwit the less, and therefore, invent new economic means which those below them adopt and later benefit from. We tend to think only in terms of technology and consumption, and not behavior as technology. But rational innovations can easily be adopted by repetition and habituation and from that we develop the sacred and the taboo. As such the rational and scientific solution to the problem of creating commons is, as the british did, privatization of administration of the commons so that institutions and rules and incentives can suffice where consensus, intent, taboo and sacred cannot. The enlightenment error is everywhere. We are not equal. We are not similar, and that is why we form a division of knowledge and labor. We cannot ask each other to operate by the same consensus, intent, taboo and sacredness. Because we unequally make use of peers versus non-peer, abstract, information. The conservatives say this in moral language that is so arational it is impossible to disassemble. But they have made sacred this set of ideas. And that is how they function.