Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • JOURNALIST FALLACY Drawing strong inferences from one or two data points

    http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2012/06/the-journalists-fallacy.htmlTHE JOURNALIST FALLACY

    Drawing strong inferences from one or two data points.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-22 12:32:00 UTC

  • VIA LITERATURE INCEPTION AND TRAINING BY OBSCURANT LANGUAGE. (This is what I’m t

    http://www.medicaldaily.com/psychologists-discover-how-people-subconsciously-become-their-favorite-fictional-characters-240435INCEPTION VIA LITERATURE

    INCEPTION AND TRAINING BY OBSCURANT LANGUAGE.

    (This is what I’m talking about Troy Camplin. )

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-22 09:56:00 UTC

  • WASHINGTON D. C. ? The “C” stands for “CRIMINALS”. The “District of Criminals.”

    WASHINGTON D. C. ?

    The “C” stands for “CRIMINALS”. The “District of Criminals.” Perfect.

    (Never heard that one before today. I’ve been missing out.)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-22 09:47:00 UTC

  • IS THE “TRIGGER POINT” FOR REGULATION AND LAW? Well, that trigger point is empir

    http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7667WHAT IS THE “TRIGGER POINT” FOR REGULATION AND LAW?

    Well, that trigger point is empirically possible to determine, but it is not rationally possible to determine.

    Our argument is that these matters of regulation are only determinable by the willingness of an insurer to insure against the action. If it is unprofitable to insure against the action, then it is likely something we should just prohibit. If it is easy to insure against, then it is something we should leave alone.

    There is no alternative ratio-empirical means by which a monopoly can make such a determination. We have a very, very bad record of deciding what should and should not be ‘permitted’.

    Secondly, the high trust society is predicated on NOT defining laws that limit behavior, in the french and german style (napoleonic law), and instead, in anglo-scandinavian style, anything that is not specifically prohibited is permitted (the common law).

    These are not philosophical questions. They are empirical questions. And the empirical means of measuring behavior is the willingness and ability to insure against it.

    That is, after all, what a government does: it functions as an insurer of last resort. But that the insurer should be the last resort, is very different from whether that insurer of last resort should be a monopoly.

    your question, as it is stated, implies that the state, and reason, and monopoly, are superior to private agency, empirical measurement, and demonstrated evidence. Including demonstrated willingness to risk, as demonstrated evidence of the truth of one’s statements.

    This is both rationally and empirically a damning criticism of law, state, and and moral philosophy as anti-scientific.

    But you know, i’ve been working on this problem for something like forty years and I am not terribly optimistic about convincing a lot of people – especially given the academic preference for anti-rational, anti-scientific. postmodern mysticism. 🙂

    http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7667#comment-308273

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-22 09:30:00 UTC

  • Love your tribe. It doesn’t matter what tribe it is. If you don’t love your trib

    Love your tribe. It doesn’t matter what tribe it is. If you don’t love your tribe then how can anyone trust you, inside or tribe or out?

    Any tribe that doesn’t love itself first, always has been and always will be, conquered by tribes that do. It’s just math.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-22 07:57:00 UTC

  • (personal) (silly) Weekend rug-rat invasion. Been a long time. Kids are awesome.

    (personal) (silly)

    Weekend rug-rat invasion. Been a long time. Kids are awesome.

    Life with kids is much better if mom isn’t terrorizing the kid with her OCD – child abuse by over-control. 🙂

    They’re learning machines. They learn what they can. What they want to. And we need to be lifeguards, but not generals.

    I cannot crawl around on all fours can chasing a small child as easily as I could when I was in my twenties though. And now my knees hurt. lol.

    Life is awesome. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-22 07:55:00 UTC

  • PERFECT WORK SCHEDULE EXPERIMENT 13 Month Business Calendar. 5 day work week + 2

    PERFECT WORK SCHEDULE EXPERIMENT

    13 Month Business Calendar.

    5 day work week + 2 day weekend.

    5 day work week + 2 day weekend.

    5 day work week + 2 day weekend. (release deliverable)

    2 day work week + 5 day weekend. (planning next)

    Holiday’s restart the cycle.

    Gotta try that some day. And track performance.

    Too hard to do unless you have something like Oversing.

    Now, the data says that ‘people’ are only productive about six hours a day. But that doesn’t really apply to the high performance fields. Plenty of us who specialize in thinking, can work ten or twelve hours productively. And, I know, that if I don’t have other real-life distractions, I’m pretty good for 14 hours a day for six weeks before I get tired.

    My favorite way to work, and I think this is true for most problem solvers, is to ‘sprint’. That means, to work very hard on a problem for up to three months, and then recover for a week or two. I’d actually rather work in sprints than I would at a constant pace.

    And I don’t think I’m alone in that. I just think most people don’t get the opportunity, and so they have to try all sorts of games to remain interested in what they’re doing, precisely because they don’t set goals, and ‘sprint’.

    One of the best reasons for sprinting, is that work doesn’t expand to fit available time, nor does work become diluted by a multitude of irrelevant but pleasantly distracting nonsense – like internal politics.

    (just a thought for the day)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-22 03:42:00 UTC

  • TRUST AND TRANSACTION COSTS “…people who do not trust one another will end up

    TRUST AND TRANSACTION COSTS

    “…people who do not trust one another will end up cooperating only under a system of formal rules and regulations, which have to be negotiated, agreed to, litigated, and enforced, sometimes by coercive means. This legal apparatus, serving as a substitute for trust, entails what economists call “transaction costs….”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-21 16:35:00 UTC

  • NAME-CALLING It used to be a problem. I mean. Before we had data. Before we had

    NAME-CALLING

    It used to be a problem. I mean. Before we had data. Before we had empirical evidence. It used to be hard to defend conservatives.

    They are so buried in multi-axial moral spaghetti that they dont themselves know what they’re saying.

    But that just mean’s their A-RATIONAL, it doesn’t mean they’re IRRATIONAL. There is a difference.

    But you know, the data is just piling up. Mountains of it. Daily. Since about 1990. And we’ve got pretty much critical mass now.

    They’re right about just about everything – except, obviously, homosexuality. That’s what the data says.

    Clear as day.

    The left has got to use every race, gender, and culture card possible while they carry any weight at all. Personally I love getting them now. ‘Cause we have data. We have lots of it.

    WELCOME TO THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT.

    Those damned conservatives were mostly right.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-21 12:41:00 UTC

  • CURRENT EVENTS: FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT (venting)(personal) You know, I hate it,

    CURRENT EVENTS: FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT

    (venting)(personal)

    You know, I hate it, but I am REALLY GOOD at hostile, brutal negotiation, suit, and prosecution. The nastier, the better. The more immoral the actions of the opposition the better. I sort of fell down from 2007-12 because of the divorce and health issues. But especially since this summer, I seem to be getting my energy back. But before my illness I viewed lawsuits as necessary mental exercise.

    I can’t stand scumbags, and I have very fond notches on my cerebral gun from putting some others under the heels of the jack booted thugs:

    – Elliot and Robert Koenig (Racketeering)

    – Sidney Golub and Paul Irwin (Fraud and Wire Fraud)

    – Wayne Seminoff and Company. (Fraud and Tax Evasion)

    – (A new one in waiting)

    ALWAYS TAKE THE MORAL HIGH GROUND. ALWAYS.

    The other idiots are almost always a greedy set of f___king criminals and will absolutely fall into the first, tiger trap that you make for them. You must be very patient. Collect information and evidence. Leave the right trail of conscientious objection. And then wait to the proper moment.

    And then you just hand the package over to the FBI, IRS, Treasury, Postal Inspector, Justice Department or whatever crusading, lower middle class bureaucrat, that loves to slaughter a capitalist whale for career, fun, profit and dinner conversation.

    The women in my life always tell me that I should just let these things go. But you know, I hate it when scumbags prey on others. And as a proud capitalist, I hate it even MORE when a capitalist is a scumbag and gives capitalism a bad name.

    And if THE STATE DIDN’T INSULATE political, intellectual, and white collar criminals by requiring ‘standing’, we could all just crucify these immoral idiots in court until we had our civil society back.

    ARISTOCRACY

    But I can’t let immorality stand.

    That’s what it means to be aristocracy: to be an owner of the commons. To manage your culture’s investment in moral capital.

    And to take threats to moral capital as threats against the body and soul of your people.

    That’s what HONOR means.

    Charity is for the weak. For the strong, our job, our DUTY, is to fight the dragons, white collar in particular. To rip out their hearts, eat them, and then piss on their rotting corpses.

    And, from personal experience, it makes excellent dinner party conversation.

    (venting off)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-21 11:19:00 UTC