—“Stanford and Chicago GSB have more academic publications that these universities’ economics departments. Two things i don’t like in this trend. 1) Academia persuaded university authorities that to business PhD and MBA math-economics is indispensable. Applied programs people hate this “rigorous” nonsense 2) Too many graduates from mainstream go to teach in business schools.”— Arteom Korotchenya – Procedural Application (private business and public govt) vs – Application(repeatability) vs – Basic Research(discovery). Three different things. Very few basic research papers of merit in any given year. Many, many applications tested each year, each expanding or reducing empirical content and thereby increasing or decreasing candidacy in law. All organizations, intellectual included, operate by class structures, roughly segmented by every ten points of IQ +/- 1/2 St.Dev. And it is the cooperation between these classes that produces the difference between imagination, hypothesis, theory, and law. Those at the bottom test theories tested by application to data and hypothesized by basic research. Together we take a restructuring of human understanding, through various tests, until habituated by use, and assumed metaphysically as a natural property of existence. So think of the hierarchy as a production cycle, and work within your class, and don’t worry about what other classes do. They CAN only work with the conceptual tools that we give them. And very few of us struggle amidst ridiculous odds to find some innovation that can work its way through that production cycle and end up in our unconscious assumptions about the nature of reality and how we can act to benefit from it. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev,
Category: Business, Organization, and Management
-
Why Are Good Philosophy Groups Rare?
WHY ARE GOOD PHILOSOPHY GROUPS RARE? Everyone, it seems, would like to create a quality philosophy group. But the problems faced are these: 1 – We all have an all-too-high opinion of whatever method of categorization, understanding, and decidability we discover. The Dunning-Kruger effect is more exaggerated in ethics, morality, politics and philosophy than any other discipline – for evolutionary reasons. We advocate for our reproductive strategy (gender, reproductive desirability, social class, and personality traits). We negotiate for and make excuses for our value to others in cooperation in reproduction, production, and commons.
2 – It takes about six to ten years of studying philosophy, science, economics, and politics, and history to say much of anything at all that isn’t ridiculously uninformed. It takes the study of law to know why philosophy is in general ridiculous. Religion, philosophy and literature are carriers for inspirational ideation: reported preference. economics, law, and history are carriers for demonstrated preference. And social science if it has done anything, has confirmed for us the vast difference between reported preference and demonstrated preference. 3 – Most philosophical argument seeks to outwit through various means of deception, other attempts to outwit previous forms of deception. 4 – The difference between cunning (outwitting – immoral), negotiating (trading – ethical ), and deciding (truth – moral ) is a substantial difference in informational content, and symmetry of information used in decisions. 5 – While public forums are good for learning how to debate the ignorant, incompetent, well-meaning, and those on a productive journey, – and possibly finding fellow travellers – they are actually pretty poor forums for finding and debating with people who possess knowledge, for the simple reason that you must bear a high costs of filtering in exchange for immediacy of discourse. (I work in public as an experiment and it’s been useful pretty much because through repetition it helps me speak to less sophisticated audiences and find advocates.) Cheers -
Why Are Good Philosophy Groups Rare?
WHY ARE GOOD PHILOSOPHY GROUPS RARE? Everyone, it seems, would like to create a quality philosophy group. But the problems faced are these: 1 – We all have an all-too-high opinion of whatever method of categorization, understanding, and decidability we discover. The Dunning-Kruger effect is more exaggerated in ethics, morality, politics and philosophy than any other discipline – for evolutionary reasons. We advocate for our reproductive strategy (gender, reproductive desirability, social class, and personality traits). We negotiate for and make excuses for our value to others in cooperation in reproduction, production, and commons.
2 – It takes about six to ten years of studying philosophy, science, economics, and politics, and history to say much of anything at all that isn’t ridiculously uninformed. It takes the study of law to know why philosophy is in general ridiculous. Religion, philosophy and literature are carriers for inspirational ideation: reported preference. economics, law, and history are carriers for demonstrated preference. And social science if it has done anything, has confirmed for us the vast difference between reported preference and demonstrated preference. 3 – Most philosophical argument seeks to outwit through various means of deception, other attempts to outwit previous forms of deception. 4 – The difference between cunning (outwitting – immoral), negotiating (trading – ethical ), and deciding (truth – moral ) is a substantial difference in informational content, and symmetry of information used in decisions. 5 – While public forums are good for learning how to debate the ignorant, incompetent, well-meaning, and those on a productive journey, – and possibly finding fellow travellers – they are actually pretty poor forums for finding and debating with people who possess knowledge, for the simple reason that you must bear a high costs of filtering in exchange for immediacy of discourse. (I work in public as an experiment and it’s been useful pretty much because through repetition it helps me speak to less sophisticated audiences and find advocates.) Cheers -
Tilting right limits your market but preserves your capital.Tilting left/liberta
Tilting right limits your market but preserves your capital.Tilting left/libertarian increases your market but costs you capital.@tlot @tcot
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-16 08:19:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/776696923378122752
-
@mises That’s not true. It’s possible to save MI and libertarianism. But need to
@mises That’s not true. It’s possible to save MI and libertarianism. But need to bring donors AND repositioning at the same time. Who can?
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-13 14:26:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775702240300531712
-
THE CLASS DIVISIONS OF ACADEMIC LABOR —“Stanford and Chicago GSB have more aca
THE CLASS DIVISIONS OF ACADEMIC LABOR
—“Stanford and Chicago GSB have more academic publications that these universities’ economics departments. Two things i don’t like in this trend. 1) Academia persuaded university authorities that to business PhD and MBA math-economics is indispensable. Applied programs people hate this “rigorous” nonsense 2) Too many graduates from mainstream go to teach in business schools.”— Arteom Korotchenya
Procedural Application (private business and public govt) vs Application(repeatability) vs Basic Research(discovery).
Three different things. Very few basic research papers of merit in any given year. Many, many applications tested each year, each expanding or reducing empirical content and thereby increasing or decreasing candidacy in law.
All organizations, intellectual included, operate by class structures, roughly segmented by every ten points of IQ +/- 1/2 St.Dev. And it is the cooperation between these classes that produces the difference between imagination, hypothesis, theory, and law. Those at the bottom test theories tested by application to data and hypothesized by basic research.
Together we take a restructuring of human understanding, through various tests, until habituated by use, and assumed metaphysically as a natural property of existence.
So think of the hierarchy as a production cycle, and work within your class, and don’t worry about what other classes do. They CAN only work with the conceptual tools that we give them. And very few of us struggle amidst ridiculous odds to find some innovation that can work its way through that production cycle and end up in our unconscious assumptions about the nature of reality and how we can act to benefit from it.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev,
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-29 05:11:00 UTC
-
Now there are PLENTY of CEO jobs that pay 3 – 700K. And those CEO’s are worth it
Now there are PLENTY of CEO jobs that pay 3 – 700K. And those CEO’s are worth it. But you know, there are starting to be an uncomfortable number of CTO jobs in the 500-600K range.
That’s just …. odd.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 15:37:00 UTC
-
Vivek Upadhyay Is it cool to get you involved with podcasts etc?
Vivek Upadhyay Is it cool to get you involved with podcasts etc?
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 14:02:00 UTC
-
THE MOST COMMON STUPID QUESTION I GET FROM SOFTWARE TEAMS: Attempting to find a
THE MOST COMMON STUPID QUESTION I GET FROM SOFTWARE TEAMS:
Attempting to find a scientific or axiomatic rule for what is an economic problem.
All programming is approximately the same. The question is only the performance demanded, cost of production, cost of maintenance, and cost of change.
If you break software into responsibilities and understand the difference between resident(executables), and instances(node.js), temporary(scripts), and transactional (database) then from that point it’s all economics.
In general, a software developer wants to reduce his costs, unless he has only his self-interests in mind and not the results of his actions.
Never hire anyone who says they want to stay on top of tech. People stay on top of tech if they’re good at producing results.
Those questions that are not economic – and there aren’t many of them – are empirical. And empirical tests defeat theoretical rules in all cases at all times.
The rules in software are the lifetime of execution, responsibility, design patterns in UI, middle, and db, and costs. That’s it.
Risk used to be significant in the past. The major risk today is not the software itself which has become relatively cheap, but the business model we anticipate with the software, and the success in providing transaction cost of use that justifies the cost of the use.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-22 08:49:00 UTC
-
“People join organizations on the premise that they will not ever lead those org
–“People join organizations on the premise that they will not ever lead those organizations because the cannot attract followers, it would be hard work, it would be scary, and they could FAIL.
People support a government because “hurr durr … it’s the law”, and the notion of having someone BUT YOURSELF be the final arbiter of YOUR OWN PROBLEMS is actually quite nice – in no small part because people cannot retaliate against you for appeal to the judiciary for a dispute resolution.
People pray to Zoroastrian offshoot Gods because they’re omnipotent so THEY don’t have to be.”— John Jost
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 08:44:00 UTC