I don’t care about anything other than the content and form of your arguments. I don’t care about nationality or race, or gender. All I care about is building an international group of people who can teach and use natural law in opposition to the abrahamic, marxist, frankfurt, and postmodern schools. Aristocracy For Everyone. Let a thousand Nations Bloom. No people can fail transcendence if they choose it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 21:13:00 UTC
CORPORATIONS
The reason for the corporation is to permit limited liability and fungibility of management and control. Like any organization that permits cooperation for gain without consumption of the commons produced thereby, the returns on corporations are higher than the returns on individual ownership. Scale makes a profound difference. Poor countries with low trust societies cannot form large corporations producing multiples of returns. But the income largely stays inside the corporations where it continues to produce returns. The problem is figuring out HOW to tax a corporation, since the state does not wish to kill the golden goose. Double taxation is the real issue. Corporations must either pay taxes OR distribute dividends that are taxed by the rate of individual income of the shareholders. (we do both today which is one of the very bad things we do.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 06:33:00 UTC
In employment, IQ tests are used for two reasons.
One, to filter people out both above(who would be bored) and below(who would be incompetent).
Second to provide a legal means of defending against racism/sexism/forced intergration charges.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 18:15:00 UTC
There used to be value for the professors although that has diminished with the financialization of the university mission – likewise it appears that the quality of teaching professors has declined by the measurement of research performance rather than student life performance.
There is social value not accounted for in the material alone.
There is a concentration of talent in university setting that does not exist outside of that setting and we learn through imitation of it and measurement of other environments by that standard.
There is value in minimizing the number of inputs (distractions) – although we might argue that insulation from market forces produces worse consequences than minimization of inputs provide.
Even if there is commodity value in the material, there is unsubstitutable value in tutoring – taking responsibility for the transition in state of each individual. There is very little if any value to administration.
The relationship between Professors and students in the college system (a collection of professors offering their courses together on the open market).
LIttle if anything is learned, retained, and practiced outside of the university setting (meaning universities primarily sort not train). There is very questionable measured value of a degree other than sorting and filtering (signaling).
We could measure this by measuring first two decade performance. But the consequences for universities would be damning.
The problem of the contemporary university is largely the conflation of vocational(craft), clerical (administrative), STEM (calculative), and religious(civic) services in one institution without variations in price, and the consequential redistribution of debt between those students.
The conflation of student, research, and sport revenues at the expense of student debt only exacerbates this problem. So by and large the degree process has no empirical measurement other than filtering.
If instead, universities had to carry student debt on behalf of the student, and could collect it only over 10 years as payroll deduction, and universities had to warranty their degrees just like other purveyors of goods and services, we would end the prior privileges we granted to universities as extensions of the church, and treat them as ordinary businesses (which is how they act) that produce a product that they must involuntarily warranty shall perform in the market.
If that were the case, it is quite likely that the schools would re-parition, the costs of education would reflect lifetime returns for each discipline, and those people who pay the high cost of ‘university’ (calculative) degrees would return to statistical levels wherein only 10% of a normally distributed ethnically european population would enter university – because that is approximately the maximum percentage of the population that is capable of university level (calculative) work.
Most importantly, the funding of marxist and postmodern propaganda produced by under sanction of the academy-as-replacment-for-church would be eliminated. etc. etc.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-30 13:26:00 UTC
CREATING ONLINE COLLEGE COURSE MATERIAL BETTER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UNIVERSITY SETTING.
PRESENTING
The biggest problem with presenting classes is not creating a narrative: a story – especially a heroic story -, starting with characters, their problems, their journey, revelation, and consequences, and delivering it ‘theatrically’. Most of the best professors ‘over act’ or ‘stage act’ and tell a heroic story. And then teach facts, calculations(methods), and arguments (essays) in that form.
If I had two bits of advice to teaching departments it would be a 1) restoration of the ancient art of rhetoric (acting out words – the theatre of presentation ), and I might suggest basic stage-acting courses as a requirement; and 2) the socratic method of working a student through steps.
And I would venture that aside from writing decent lesson plans, and socratic method of inquiry into the student’s frame of mind, the primary indicator of the success of a teacher with students would be determined by the presentation quality of his or her classes.
DELIVERING
The biggest problem with delivering classes at scale is simply ‘covering the material’ instead of following the rule of ” here is what I’m going to tell you, here is what I’m telling you, and here is what I told you. Here is what you need to remember. Doing homework that follows ‘here is what you need to remember’. Then conducting ‘reviews’ of the past material by repeating here is what you were told, here is what you needed to remember, and then testing on it. Cycles matter. (Online language courses do this very well).
TESTING
The biggest problem with delivering ‘tests’ at scale, is that the questions aren’t contextual enough (wordy enough) for people with different frames of reference. Short questions lacking context do not occur in real life, and short questions favor those with good memories who share the professor’s frame of reference, rather than understanding of the subject.
Just as grad schools give case studies, most essay questions should provide context. calculation problems while studying might be simple recitations, but on tests should be word problems when possible. And fact questions should be limited to multiple choices. So facts: multiple choices, calculations: word problems, and essay questions: should provide context.
STAFFING
The Biggest Problem of Staffing a class at scale is that scaling storytelling works, Scaling examples works. But scaling tutoring doesn’t work – where tutoring consists in assisting individuals in bridging frames of references – eliminating those little missing bricks of free association that make incremental understanding possible.
Requires:
– Professor (class),
– Assistants (tutor),
– Peers (discourse),
– Test (measure)
– Professor or Assistants (issue reward/congratulations)
LIMITING
The uncomfortable problem of tutoring is that without a series of prerequisite classes there is no way of limiting entry to those who bypass prerequisite work and demand remedial teaching from the professor, the tutors, and the peers. (which is what 90% of male internet chatter consists of: demand for remedial teaching);
IN CLOSING
In other words, it’s a bit expensive to put on a good class at scale.
professor. one assistant(tutor) per 100 students. At least 20 to 1 class composition time. (one hour of online class takes +20 hours of production. And more likely it takes 40.)
For a ‘college course’ we would see 45-50 hours of course material, requiring 100-150 hours of ‘study’ (practice, or reading). for the student this is a 150-200 hour commitment. For course creation, assuming you haven’t written a book already, it takes 20×50 hours or 1000 hours (six months of work) to put together an online college course.
Which is why no one does it. Instead we get videos of classrooms, audiobook lectures, and topic-courses of 16-30 hours. ( The Learning Company has done a great job with their programs. They select some of the world’s best TEACHING professors, who already have course material, and record them teaching it. It would be interesting to know their cost of production. )
So it’s a business venture to put out college courseware. What we have now, generally, is hobby-level production. We won’t (likely) be able to afford college course level production without online accreditation.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-29 11:34:00 UTC
There really isn’t a lot of value to universities other than the quality of professor that they can afford to hire, and the fact that there are very few really good professors working at any given time in any field.
My expectation (and I think peterson and others have said this) is that the trend will obviously be solving the problem of certification, and the formation of digital universities so that professors can teach very large classes, use a cadre of graduates to grade the work, and profit from those classes, is the future. And I suspect a much higher quality of education in that future principally because we have access to the best.
And can you imagine the earnings from 50K students per year instead of 50 or 100?
Top professors will earn absurd returns.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 16:56:00 UTC
—As a longer term bit of strategy, I want the movement to be less about me, and more about the team and the idea. My agenda was to create a counter to the frankfurt school – a sort of ‘New Inquisition” against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. A ‘cult’ of Prosecutors of Natural Law. And a group of specialists that provide historical expertise as needed to assist those prosecutors. So I would prefer to ‘go to market’ with that example, rather than just relying on myself. The purpose of the prosecutors is to function as a court that licenses the ‘activists’ to ‘act’. I do not want to be a gate nor do I want a movement dependent upon me. I will be gone eventually. The movement must persist. —
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-25 07:41:00 UTC
THE VALUE IS ALL IN ORGANIZING, NOT IN LABORING
—“This is profound. How about expanding it and making it into its own post? Who organizes violence? Who organizes reproduction? Etc.”—Ben Smith
THE ECONOMICS OF TIME
our only existential commodity is time. It is very scarce. when we divide labor we produce multiples of returns on time that are not achievable by any other means. In this sense we are not wealthier than cave men, we have simply made all things cheaper.
When we come together in groups we have the choice of flight, cooperation, or conflict. If we cooperate that means at the very least we do not prey upon each other. At best it means that we engage in a division of labor. But most importantly, we reduce opportunity costs – the time necessary to find an opportunity.
So while our second commons is cooperation, (property), our first commons is opportunities. When we cooperate we do not allow one another to seize opportunities. Instead, we only allow one another to homestead opportunities. This is why competition succeeds: we compete for opportunities created by proximity and property. And we empirically test our hypotheses by our success or failure in seizing those opportunities via the market.
Now, we hold this set of opportunities (territory) by defending them from others. We defend them from others who would take them without homesteading. We defend them from others who would reallocate that property and those opportunities.
The military ‘owns’ the territory. All of it. Everyone else is merely a customer. That’s simply an operational fact.
So the military organizes the territory. Within it, the government organizes the commons. Within the commons the capitalists organized production; the bourgeoise organize production distribution and trade. Within the commons the people organize families. And Labor (important distinction) organizes physical things as needed by transforming them from one state to the next. So nearly all work is using incentives to organize people, while labor organizes that which is not human.
Now we come together into markets (cities) where opportunity costs are low, but territorial costs are high, and commons are cheap. Others distribute to suburbia and rural areas where opportunity costs are higher, territorial costs are lower, and commons are terribly expensive.
Some countries intelligently solve this problem (french concentration in cities, and protectionism in the rural areas; or german mandatory family sized apartments in cities) or really poorly (british homes are tiny, dark, expensive, hovels by comparison), new york is moving the way of tokyo, and much of asia is returning to pre-civilized eras where one rents a cubicle for sleeping and lives outside of that area the rest of the day.
The costs of commons differ by density. If we were to vote on commons then votes should consist of the inverse of population density, since the cost of commons in rural areas is absurd, and this is what accounts for the differences in urban and rural behavior: accurate perception of differences in costs of commons.
Landlordism (manorialism) has proven an exceptional method for allocating territory to those who are most productive with it, and pushing out those who are unproductive. In America we already have Georgist taxation on land. It hasn’t changed anything. Property rents vary by location but mostly by the built capital upon that location. So it doesn’t make any difference. The russians tried the opposite and it led to shitty life everywhere.
If you said that the resources are a commons, then yes, that makes sense. If you said that taxes on rental properties are not empirically matched to total service costs I would say that was easy to test and it’s unlikely to be true.
So unless you can make a fairly strong portfolio case then it’s hard to argue.
Landlords organize density the way investors organize industry, the way entrepreneurs organize talents, the way managers organize labor.
All the value is in organizing people. The labor isn’t worth shit.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-20 13:00:00 UTC
( Watching an Asian guy fail because he doesn’t grasp that western investors don’t haggle. Absolute transparency is required. Every word is a contract. You propose the deal you need. That proposal of ‘reasonableness’ is their test of you. If they see something they like they will respond with something. If you can tolerate the deal and can leverage investor, you take it. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-19 21:02:00 UTC
Why do I want to combine church, school, and academy? Because the era where education ends is over. Education will be continuous. Not a single large investment followed by debt, but a continuous part time investment from birth until death. Not classes organized by age, but by ability and interest. And there is no need for a church of lies. We will not need a church of continuous therapy for our failure to produce mindfulness. Only the teaching of the disciplines by which we produce in a division of labor, that security which we evolved in the tribe.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 14:21:00 UTC