Words of Wisdom: The King of The Hill Education https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/words-of-wisdom-the-king-of-the-hill-education/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 00:47:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267256450771898368
Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response
-
Words of Wisdom: The King of The Hill Education
Words of Wisdom: The King of The Hill Education https://t.co/wMG0eUVyeK
-
Words of Wisdom: The King of The Hill Education
—“Riffing off each other creates the best teaching posts and the best learning posts… the best way to learn something is to teach it.. Thanks Curt and Bill..”—Tobias Darby
Multiple overlapping King of The Hill Games – over time – rather than under time pressure – are the optimum means of teaching men, and it certainly appears the optimum means of teaching women, who prefer not to climb, but to observe, support and criticize. This is my vision of education, and it will mean only the best of us will be able to teach, and as such teaching weill become as it should be and is in other civilizations the most respected of positions rather than a clerical position largely one of babysitting.
-
You Miss the Point. Anti-Materialism Is a Sophism to Cover for Lying. We Seek Ga
You Miss the Point. Anti-Materialism Is a Sophism to Cover for Lying. We Seek Gains and To Prevent Losses. https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/you-miss-the-point-anti-materialism-is-a-sophism-to-cover-for-lying-we-seek-gains-and-to-prevent-losses/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 00:47:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267256355993333761
-
You Miss the Point. Anti-Materialism Is a Sophism to Cover for Lying. We Seek Ga
You Miss the Point. Anti-Materialism Is a Sophism to Cover for Lying. We Seek Gains and To Prevent Losses. https://t.co/sHNNMWB3W2
-
You Miss the Point. Anti-Materialism Is a Sophism to Cover for Lying. We Seek Gains and To Prevent Losses.
—“But I think you miss the mark somewhat here because heroism is fundamentally not about the material or Darwinian advantages.”—
Heroism is a means of paying status and opportunity rather than material rewards, in exchange for directing dominance display to the production of commons. those commons may be physical, may be opportunities, may be, normative, may be informational or anything in between. So your mistake is failing to grasp that the use of ‘materialism’ as a criticism is an attempt to lie. instead, we seek gains whether material, opportunistic, or informational, and to prevent losses of the same. Because in all things we are simply an extension of the physical laws of the universe, with nothing other than the use of memory to choose optimum opportunities, rather than fae the limits of the physical world in seizing the first opportunity. it is by this vast accumulation of differences using different forms of memory that we capture and resist entropy while the reset of the universe decays. If I can get this thru: if you cannot convert an emotion to its underlying economic terms, then you are still talking superstition. It’s pseudoscientific superstition. But it’s superstition. In this example you are still thinking feelings have value, instead of that we evolved to experience positive and negative feelings for having increasing or decreasing assets, in physical (premium), opportunistic(discount), or informational (discount) form.
-
You Miss the Point. Anti-Materialism Is a Sophism to Cover for Lying. We Seek Gains and To Prevent Losses.
—“But I think you miss the mark somewhat here because heroism is fundamentally not about the material or Darwinian advantages.”—
Heroism is a means of paying status and opportunity rather than material rewards, in exchange for directing dominance display to the production of commons. those commons may be physical, may be opportunities, may be, normative, may be informational or anything in between. So your mistake is failing to grasp that the use of ‘materialism’ as a criticism is an attempt to lie. instead, we seek gains whether material, opportunistic, or informational, and to prevent losses of the same. Because in all things we are simply an extension of the physical laws of the universe, with nothing other than the use of memory to choose optimum opportunities, rather than fae the limits of the physical world in seizing the first opportunity. it is by this vast accumulation of differences using different forms of memory that we capture and resist entropy while the reset of the universe decays. If I can get this thru: if you cannot convert an emotion to its underlying economic terms, then you are still talking superstition. It’s pseudoscientific superstition. But it’s superstition. In this example you are still thinking feelings have value, instead of that we evolved to experience positive and negative feelings for having increasing or decreasing assets, in physical (premium), opportunistic(discount), or informational (discount) form.
-
The Relativity Priority Dispute
—“Doolittle starts out by saying that Einstein was revolutionary for saying that “length is not static; it changes according to its placement in the universe”. The Theory of Relativity was NOT invented by Einstein, but by Henri Poircaré….”—
What the f–k does that have to do with anything I said. (a) einstein invented the frame, period, end of story, (b) like all of us he combined recent works of others, into a solution none of them had seen – as do all thinkers, myself included, (c) you clearly are not informed or smart enough to comment on this subject. Yes, einstein gets an undeserved and disproportionate amount of the credit. It’s equally deserved to Lorentz and Especially Hilbert, who is far smarter than einstein. Yes, there is a very great similarity between Einstein getting the rewards from what was lorentz and hilbert’s work, just as Zuckerberg is getting rewards from what was the brother’s work. Read this and learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute Likewise, just because I united popper’s falsification, strawson’s performative truth, chomsky’s grammar, and hayek’s law – and explained why poincare, brouwer and bridgman lost the opertionalist argument, doesn’t mean I”m plagiarizing, any more than einstein taking the various works of others, adding to and uniting them. We all stand on the shoulders of others, and all of us move the needle one step at a time forward. Yes, Poincare and lorentz (and maxwell) solved the underlying problem. But no they couldn’t provide the completion of it. I know your motivation is to discredit their only ‘virtuous’ intellectual amidst the long line of criminal liars all the way back into their origins. But it doesn’t work. It just makes you look stupid. Don’t stomp on a post to for attention, or to vent from failure to understand, or stress of your own mental reorganization. All you do is tell us you feel out of control in your life. Instead, Post to contribute. And Ask don’t assert.
-
The Relativity Priority Dispute
—“Doolittle starts out by saying that Einstein was revolutionary for saying that “length is not static; it changes according to its placement in the universe”. The Theory of Relativity was NOT invented by Einstein, but by Henri Poircaré….”—
What the f–k does that have to do with anything I said. (a) einstein invented the frame, period, end of story, (b) like all of us he combined recent works of others, into a solution none of them had seen – as do all thinkers, myself included, (c) you clearly are not informed or smart enough to comment on this subject. Yes, einstein gets an undeserved and disproportionate amount of the credit. It’s equally deserved to Lorentz and Especially Hilbert, who is far smarter than einstein. Yes, there is a very great similarity between Einstein getting the rewards from what was lorentz and hilbert’s work, just as Zuckerberg is getting rewards from what was the brother’s work. Read this and learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute Likewise, just because I united popper’s falsification, strawson’s performative truth, chomsky’s grammar, and hayek’s law – and explained why poincare, brouwer and bridgman lost the opertionalist argument, doesn’t mean I”m plagiarizing, any more than einstein taking the various works of others, adding to and uniting them. We all stand on the shoulders of others, and all of us move the needle one step at a time forward. Yes, Poincare and lorentz (and maxwell) solved the underlying problem. But no they couldn’t provide the completion of it. I know your motivation is to discredit their only ‘virtuous’ intellectual amidst the long line of criminal liars all the way back into their origins. But it doesn’t work. It just makes you look stupid. Don’t stomp on a post to for attention, or to vent from failure to understand, or stress of your own mental reorganization. All you do is tell us you feel out of control in your life. Instead, Post to contribute. And Ask don’t assert.
-
Net Net on Homosexuality
Net Net on Homosexuality https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/net-net-on-homosexuality/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 00:41:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267255026340319232