Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • HOW FAST YOU CAN BECOME A MILLIONAIRE, BY COUNTRY

    HOW FAST YOU CAN BECOME A MILLIONAIRE, BY COUNTRY

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-14 03:20:00 UTC

  • What Are Some Good Examples Of Intellectual Honesty?

    Intellectual Honesty means, in practice, that  in any argumentative or persuasive discourse, when given an incentive for deception, either of yourself and/or others, that you avoid such deception at all times.   Or more simply, arguing to win, or to avoid blame, rather than arguing in pursuit of objective truth. 

    And objective truth means, that among peers, citizens or shareholders, that you will self benefit, at a cost to others through deception.

    (PHILOSOPHICAL RIGOUR WARNING)

    1. Morality. 
    Morality is the term we use for stealing from, or failing to contribute to, the commons. Morals are, universally,  a normative portfolio of prohibitions  on stealing from the commons.  Where the commons can be defined as anything from physical property, to the habituated common property that we call ‘norms’.  Incentives then, can come from more than selfish benefits. In other words, morality varies by the various definitions of the commons.  Notoriously conservatives place high value on the normative commons, and progressives discount it entirely.

    2) Externalities
    In any debate, (economics and politics in particular) there are unknowns.  In economics we know must less than economists suggest with their arguments.  We only have reasonably good data since 1945, and arguably, all economic data from that point onward is simply the effect of US Military and commercial dominance working its way across the world.  And nothing else.  Secondly, there are siginficant ways in which our societies are impacted, and some of them are positive (risk taking) and some of them are negative (fragility, overbreeding, overconsumption). These are called externalities. Since externalities actually benefit some and harm others, and since these benefits and harms favor different political groups, policies are a source of conflict. Because these matters are complicated, even the best (nobel prize winners included) often confuse a preference with a truth.

    3) So, intellectual honesty requires consideration of
    a) your ignorance vs knowledge
    b) your likelihood of error in reasoning
    c) your personal incentive to fool yourself or others
    d) your preferences for moral biases.
    e) your preferences for externalities
    The problem with most intellectual debates is a failure to account for the full scope of a thru e.

    4. Antiquated Language.
    The term ‘intellectual honesty’ is somewhat confusing. That is because our language is still antiquated. Our language is stil antiquated because we use moral terms with religious origins that rely upon norms, rather than propertarian terms with commercial origins that rely upon property.  Even when our morals are, universally, statements about property.  When we use propertarian terms, we can remove the obscurity of moral language, and see the voluntary and involuntary transfers that occur in any interaction between humans.  Propertarian language is to morality, as the language of physical science is to human perception.  Human emotions are reactions to changes in the state of property. And human political conflict is a reaction to changes in the perceived ‘fair’ definitions of property.  And definitinos of fair property are determined by reproductive behavior and signaling, and therefore vary by class and gender.

    5. Propertarian Language – Paying for right of free speech
    In Propertarianism we would argue that intellectual honesty means that you forgo the opportunity to use deception, and suppress the human natural instinct for deception, and thereby pay for your right of free speech.  As such free speech is property, gained through constant payment, by forgoing opportunities for self benefit – including the most simplistic psychic rewards from winning arguments, to the most sophisticated achievement of wealth and power.

    (END PHILOSOPHICAL RIGOR WARNING)  🙂

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-examples-of-intellectual-honesty

  • What Are Some Good Examples Of Intellectual Honesty?

    Intellectual Honesty means, in practice, that  in any argumentative or persuasive discourse, when given an incentive for deception, either of yourself and/or others, that you avoid such deception at all times.   Or more simply, arguing to win, or to avoid blame, rather than arguing in pursuit of objective truth. 

    And objective truth means, that among peers, citizens or shareholders, that you will self benefit, at a cost to others through deception.

    (PHILOSOPHICAL RIGOUR WARNING)

    1. Morality. 
    Morality is the term we use for stealing from, or failing to contribute to, the commons. Morals are, universally,  a normative portfolio of prohibitions  on stealing from the commons.  Where the commons can be defined as anything from physical property, to the habituated common property that we call ‘norms’.  Incentives then, can come from more than selfish benefits. In other words, morality varies by the various definitions of the commons.  Notoriously conservatives place high value on the normative commons, and progressives discount it entirely.

    2) Externalities
    In any debate, (economics and politics in particular) there are unknowns.  In economics we know must less than economists suggest with their arguments.  We only have reasonably good data since 1945, and arguably, all economic data from that point onward is simply the effect of US Military and commercial dominance working its way across the world.  And nothing else.  Secondly, there are siginficant ways in which our societies are impacted, and some of them are positive (risk taking) and some of them are negative (fragility, overbreeding, overconsumption). These are called externalities. Since externalities actually benefit some and harm others, and since these benefits and harms favor different political groups, policies are a source of conflict. Because these matters are complicated, even the best (nobel prize winners included) often confuse a preference with a truth.

    3) So, intellectual honesty requires consideration of
    a) your ignorance vs knowledge
    b) your likelihood of error in reasoning
    c) your personal incentive to fool yourself or others
    d) your preferences for moral biases.
    e) your preferences for externalities
    The problem with most intellectual debates is a failure to account for the full scope of a thru e.

    4. Antiquated Language.
    The term ‘intellectual honesty’ is somewhat confusing. That is because our language is still antiquated. Our language is stil antiquated because we use moral terms with religious origins that rely upon norms, rather than propertarian terms with commercial origins that rely upon property.  Even when our morals are, universally, statements about property.  When we use propertarian terms, we can remove the obscurity of moral language, and see the voluntary and involuntary transfers that occur in any interaction between humans.  Propertarian language is to morality, as the language of physical science is to human perception.  Human emotions are reactions to changes in the state of property. And human political conflict is a reaction to changes in the perceived ‘fair’ definitions of property.  And definitinos of fair property are determined by reproductive behavior and signaling, and therefore vary by class and gender.

    5. Propertarian Language – Paying for right of free speech
    In Propertarianism we would argue that intellectual honesty means that you forgo the opportunity to use deception, and suppress the human natural instinct for deception, and thereby pay for your right of free speech.  As such free speech is property, gained through constant payment, by forgoing opportunities for self benefit – including the most simplistic psychic rewards from winning arguments, to the most sophisticated achievement of wealth and power.

    (END PHILOSOPHICAL RIGOR WARNING)  🙂

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-examples-of-intellectual-honesty

  • ON BEAUTY: A CRITIQUE OF ISLAM (From a post elsewhere, where someone very gracio

    ON BEAUTY: A CRITIQUE OF ISLAM

    (From a post elsewhere, where someone very gracious was criticized as being racist. When she is anything but.)

    ~Aphrodite,

    You are one of the most tolerant people out there. Don’t sweat it.

    Arguing against a religion is not arguing against a race. You cannot change your genes. You have the volition to change your ideas. If arguing against a religion is racism then arguing against Christianity is anti-white racism. This whole line of reasoning makes no sense.

    Islam is not a religion. It is a political system structured as a religion. It is the highest evolution of monotheism, which successfully institutionalized mysticism as law. That we grant this political system the same status as religion out of tolerance is a convenient trick of marketing that we could call deceptive if it were applied to any other product or service. It is perfectly logical, and perfectly consistent with western secular tolerance to criticize a political system – even if it is structured as a religion. That is because the western concept of tolerance is predicated on the requirement that the purpose of any government is the production of prosperity for its people.

    Islam reduces people to poverty. It always has. It always will. It must. It is intellectually closed. And the market economy which is what produces wealth, requires constant disruptive innovation through that process of competition. One cannot have prosperity and certainty. Islam promises certainty and delivers what certainty must: poverty.

    Therefore we are perfectly legitimate in criticizing Islam as a political system whether or not people treat that political system as a religion. In the west, democratic secular socialist egalitarian humanism has risen to the status of unquestionable religion – an act of faith that is contrary to the evidence. Yet we allow ourselves to criticize it. We encourage ourselves to criticize it.

    You are the author of an artistic sentimental publication stream. Whether consciously or not, the dominant properties of the beauty you admire and promote are a) ‘the presence of resources’, and b) ‘there is always plenty’, and c) ‘humans are capable of creating beauty and as such we should wonder at the marvel of it’. These are the conceptual concepts that you work with whether you articulate them rationally as I have just done, or whether you intuit these properties without being able to articulate them.

    However, the underlying problem with beauty is that it may contain a false promise, just as do religions: the promise of the absence of scarcity. The absence of scarcity means we do not need to compete. It means we do not need to constantly calculate for the purpose of producing something which others will trade for us.

    Islam makes a similar promise: that we can be seduced by certainty. That we can avoid the problem solving that science provides us with the tools to constantly bear. That innovation in thought thought he competition of ideas is not only unnecessary but undesirable.

    It may be possible to tolerate the myth of the absence of scarcity, because that myth provides us with the desire to create beauty by creating plenty – prosperity. But it is not possible to tolerate the myth of certainty – because it produces poverty. It can only produce poverty.

    It is certainly within our moral code to criticize Islam on political and material grounds. And whomever argues that Islam is a religion rather than a political system hiding under the cover of a religion, is either engaging in deception or error.

    And whomever argues that stasis, certainty and poverty are preferable to innovation, uncertainty and prosperity.

    Islam is institutionalized ignorance and poverty. It is a failed economic system. And there is nothing beautiful or plentiful about it.

    That may be too deep a bit of philosophy for Facebook, but it is pretty solid logic all the way ’round. Maybe, it will help you assuage your conscience. You’re a wonderful person and I”m glad that you make the world a better place by reminding us how beauty makes it so.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-11 05:39:00 UTC

  • REALITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC POLITY

    http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspxTHE REALITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC POLITY

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-09 09:07:00 UTC

  • REVOLUTION (Expensive and destructive) SECESSION (Expensive) NULLIFICATION (dirt

    REVOLUTION (Expensive and destructive)

    SECESSION (Expensive)

    NULLIFICATION (dirt cheap.)

    Nullification is the least expensive and least procedurally complex means of weakening the central government.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-08 11:40:00 UTC

  • EVERYONE WHO ASKS ABOUT MY IPHONE CASE The Incipio Stowaway holds three cads in

    http://www.incipio.com/best-of-2012/iphone-4-4s-stowaway-credit-card-hard-shell-case-with-silicone-core.htmlFOR EVERYONE WHO ASKS ABOUT MY IPHONE CASE

    The Incipio Stowaway holds three cads in a drawer on the back. That means, License, Credit Card, and Insurance Card. Which is all you really need in life. 🙂 I photograph every other bit of ID I have and keep it on the phone. And that means no wallet.

    Now, yes, it’s thicker. But it’s not thicker than those hideous men’s wallets bulging in your back pocket.

    http://www.incipio.com/cases/iphone-cases/iphone-4-4s-cases/iphone-4-4s-stowaway-credit-card-hard-shell-case-with-silicone-core.html

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-06 19:46:00 UTC

  • LAPEL AND SQUARE

    http://www.thesartorialist.com/photos/on-the-street-fashion-detail-florence-2/FASHION : LAPEL AND SQUARE

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-06 19:37:00 UTC

  • RUTHLESS Ok. So yes. I have this reputation. And yes. I’ve earned it. But the tr

    RUTHLESS

    Ok. So yes. I have this reputation. And yes. I’ve earned it. But the truth is, it’s not one that you want. It’s like being a mercenary. Everybody wants them when they need them. But you’re uncomfortable if they’re living next door.

    When I married Allora, I made a pledge to stop being ruthless. And, working with my friend Jim, who tempers my rather ruthless tendencies. (Although he is just as ruthless operationally as I am strategically. ) But events and pressures can make dead old habits come back to life.

    But ruthlessness has a natural side effect: loyalty. And I’m loyal.

    Why? Well, the world is chaotic – or more accurately “kaleidic”. And, because the world is kaleidic, and we are possessed of too little information at all times. And because of this paucity of information, we we all need a means of making decisions. Especially when it is almost impossible to make a decision between multiple possible paths that lead to equally beneficial outcomes.

    Now, there are a whole lot of options available to you. Norms, rules, habits, beliefs, myths, superstitions. And most of these means of choosing, are constructed around different ideas of a ‘common good’. Under the theory that you will not be blamed, materially or morally, for making decisions that are made according to those rules.

    Unfortunately, I am only too aware of the fact that the only common good we can ever really know is the respect for property. I certainly don’t agree with the american cultural concept of the ‘common good’. Secondly, I don’t exactly have the emotional portfolio of the average person, so I can’t rely on all sorts of sentiments and habits.

    One sentiment that I both understand and feel strongly is loyalty. This is partly because relationships are a high transaction cost for me – once I find a person good enough to work with I prefer to invest heavily in that person.

    But Loyalty is an emotionally loaded word. In practice it means bearing costs, even if only in the form of opportunity costs, on behalf of others as an investment in a shared objective. We like to think of it emotionally. But as I state elsewhere, all emotions are reactions to changes in state of our property – if property is understood in its broadest sense. And loyalty is the act of making the best use of a large investment in an individual.

    So faced with a Kaleidic universe, and in need of a means of decision making, I make my decisions based upon loyalty. Which is to say on the property I understand and can calculate.

    And, as a rational creature, and a propertarian, it’s actually the only choice available to me. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-06 10:04:00 UTC

  • UKRAINE IS EVERYTHING AMERICA IS NOT Thank god. I love it here. The people are h

    UKRAINE IS EVERYTHING AMERICA IS NOT

    Thank god. I love it here. The people are human. They are what we are meant to be. It is beautiful. It is human. It is real. It is what we used to be. It is what we long for. Its what taunts us in our dreams.

    It is the absence of credit.

    No man understands the meaning of that statement better than i do.

    It is us. In our natural state. Prior to the state.

    Loving each other. Rather than loving credit.

    It is a miracle that by accident, I can experience it.

    Thank you God. I understand and appreciate it. :).

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-05 21:30:00 UTC