But my claims are TESTIFIABLE and yours are not.
If it’s untestifiable that means any truth claim is falsified.
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-01 20:07:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719808279436488911
Reply addressees: @HakunaMateria
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719806882620338497
RE: NLI Home Page Section: “The Problem”.
Can you understand the meaning of the text? Even if it is dense.
ChatGPT
Yes, I understand the overarching themes and arguments presented in your text. It seems to be a broad exposition on the structural and historical roots of social and political conflicts. Your essay seeks to explain how various groups form around collective strategies and mythologies that help navigate the complexities of human life. You also discuss how technology, class mobility, and government systems contribute to these existing social dynamics.
You argue that these collective strategies, deeply rooted in historical and sometimes even genetic conditions, are resistant to change and are a primary cause of contemporary social conflicts. You bring in the issue of corruption and calcification within governments and institutions as an exacerbating factor. You also cite the problem of an “oversupply of elites,” suggesting that this overabundance contributes to societal inefficiencies and conflicts.
Finally, you point out the unique ability of Anglo-Saxon legal and governmental systems to adapt to societal needs by changing rules rather than people, positing it as a potential solution for the conflicts you describe.
The density of the text comes from its attempt to integrate a wide range of complex ideas into a single, cohesive argument. While the core ideas are clear, the text could benefit from further elaboration and structuring to make it more accessible.
CURTD
Thanks.
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-01 20:06:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719808041850183680
You’re wrong. In fact, the universe is so simple it’s intellectually insulting. I’m not arrogant enough to assert that there are turtles all the way down so to speak.
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-01 20:00:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719806521163272204
Reply addressees: @HakunaMateria
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719800151446044717
There is no purpose unless we make our survival of that heat death our purpose by choice.
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-01 19:58:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719806223275491388
Reply addressees: @Gyeff0
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719805418644328875
This is correct of course.
But it’s only partly true.
If we account for that small percentage that should never be permitted back into the commons we would radically reduce crime.
If we account for the incentives for criminal and antisocial behavior we can possibly reduce a larger fraction of the population that is easily succeptible to criminal and antisocial behavior.
If we account for the large number of people insufficiently supplied with the training (Discipline) to produce mindfulness we then start to make inroads on the masses.
If we account for the failure of education to provide konwledge discipline and training sufficient to maintain mindfulness in an adversarial world of markets in everything, then we have not only made inroads but begun to solve the problem of the majority.
There are plenty of mentally unhealthy people walking the streets.
And the reason for that is partly our fault.
and it’s because of silly ideas.
Silly ideas about humans – wishful thinking combined with magical thinking.
And worse – only about ten percent of people actually think. The rest only feel or intuit and then seek some set of words they know to justify those feelings and intuitions no matter how absurd they are for the context we live in.
This means without institutional means of training generations into mindfulness by multiple means there are too few of those of us who think, and those who think are distproportionately male, to bring about change.
There are all sorts of capital humans depend upon and we created the progressivism of the 20th under the fanciful prsumption that we had solved scarcity, that reduction in sarcity would producde mindfulness, that education could supplant indoctrination into mindfulness, and that human instinctual behavior would not re-emerge as a source of conflict and decay without that mindfulness. and it is currently mass producing mental illness on a scale not seen in human history.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Reply addressees: @taylorburrowes
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-01 19:58:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719806072892874752
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719797606732448190
Turtles all the way down. In the end if there is no purpose to the universe, then there is only the accident of persistence by the concentration of energy in defeat of entropy.
If I were to anthropomorphize a purpose of the universe, it would be that it’s a very wasteful process by which to attempt to calculate the transcendence of at least one life form into gods than can save the universe from heat death.
Reply addressees: @Gyeff0
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-01 19:48:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719803537834549248
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719801411431485633
(NLI SITE UPDATE)
I’ve updated the home page to remove the ‘broken’ links while we work on the new content, and put the full text on the page, as well as a banner asking for patience as we move content onto the website.
Hopefully this will cut down on complaints. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-01 19:46:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719802994223370746
You are trying to make an excuse for the existence of a superme deity rather than stating you can testify to your claims.
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-01 19:29:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719798768000721364
Reply addressees: @HakunaMateria
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719796746795270151
RT @curtdoolittle: @Josh_Ebner @taylorburrowes @NoahRevoy –“Evil men are punished for their bad behavior to a far greater extent than evil…
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-01 18:36:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719785621361676407
–“Evil men are punished for their bad behavior to a far greater extent than evil women are punished for their bad behavior. Both Machiavellian men and Machiavellian women exist, but men are held accountable more than women. We need to resolve the problem from both ends.”–@taylorburrowes
Yes you are correct. But men’s antisocial behavior is immediately dangerous and women’s antisocial beahvior is cumulatively harmful.
As far as I know I’ve done more work on this subect than anyone else past or present. And the only question that I simply can’t find a comfortable answer to is why do westerners in particular (W.E.I.R.D. culture) tolerate women’s antisocial behavior (undermining to sedition by social warfare), when other civilizations don’t. And when the Common Law did prohibit these behaviors prior to the constitutional era. Gossiping (undermining), and Shrilling (Karens), or anything that ‘disturbed the king’s peace’ by sewing discord was criminalized and we have some interesting records of punishment for it throughout the medieval period.
So women are only recently (since given the vote and entry into the work force) able to use politics and economics to scale their intutions. Yet these intuitions are the polar opposite of those that have made european civilization so disproportionately successful vs the rest. If not for women’s votes – or at least, single women’s votes – we would not have the crisis of the age.
Now, women’s behavior differs from men by a very simple set of variables that are rather obvious in differences in brain organization, neurochemistry, and behavior. Largely, the sexes evolved a division of labor in time, or what we call feminine empathizing in time vs masculine systematizing over time. This resulted in the feminine prey dominance in cognition and the masculine predator dominance in cognition. And together these resulted in masculine search for status and reproductive advantage by seeking responsibilty for private an common capital despite the risks of doing so, versus the feminine search for hyperconsumption, hypergamy, and irresponsibilty for common capital because of the risk involved in conflict and settlement of disputes over common capital.
Thats really the difference and that’s all of it. And that’s also what’s evidenced in sex differences in antisocial behavior, as well as sex differences in moral intution, and sex differences in political bias. Men for for maximizing individual responsibility and women vote for minimizing individual responsibility. For the reasons I’ve stated.
This only changes when women have three or more children, and then they carry the burden of the behavior of children the way men carry the burden of behavior of all of society – including the dangerous men.
It’s really that simple. 😉
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Reply addressees: @Josh_Ebner @taylorburrowes @NoahRevoy
Source date (UTC): 2023-11-01 18:36:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719785589673689088
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1719774736018747769