Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Retweeted Klivanophoros (@klivanophoros): @curtdoolittle the ancient world knew

    Retweeted Klivanophoros (@klivanophoros):

    @curtdoolittle the ancient world knew about actors. they kept them at the same level as whores and criminals. now we worship them.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 10:26:00 UTC

  • “[Your answer is too complex and unusable.]”— For stupid folk yes. It is howev

    —“[Your answer is too complex and unusable.]”—

    For stupid folk yes. It is however, correct.

    Just ’cause economics is hard doesn’t mean its false.

    Just ’cause algebraic geometry is hard doesn’t mean it’s false.

    Just ’cause subatomic physics is hard, doesn’t mean it’s false.

    Just ’cause natural law is hard, doesn’t mean it’s false.

    Stupid people only matter under universal democracy.

    One cannot fix stupid people.

    One can however eliminate them from democratic participation.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 09:31:00 UTC

  • —“[Your answer is too complex and unusable.]”—

    —“[Your answer is too complex and unusable.]”— For stupid folk yes. It is however, correct. Just ’cause economics is hard doesn’t mean its false. Just ’cause algebraic geometry is hard doesn’t mean it’s false. Just ’cause subatomic physics is hard, doesn’t mean it’s false. Just ’cause natural law is hard, doesn’t mean it’s false. Stupid people only matter under universal democracy. One cannot fix stupid people. One can however eliminate them from democratic participation.

  • —“[Your answer is too complex and unusable.]”—

    —“[Your answer is too complex and unusable.]”— For stupid folk yes. It is however, correct. Just ’cause economics is hard doesn’t mean its false. Just ’cause algebraic geometry is hard doesn’t mean it’s false. Just ’cause subatomic physics is hard, doesn’t mean it’s false. Just ’cause natural law is hard, doesn’t mean it’s false. Stupid people only matter under universal democracy. One cannot fix stupid people. One can however eliminate them from democratic participation.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post. UM, NO. DON”T BOTHER READING. SCAN FOR IRONY AND H

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    UM, NO. DON”T BOTHER READING. SCAN FOR IRONY AND HUMOR.

    Language gives us the impression we are more similar than we are, while the concepts that we think with and the values we attribute to them demonstrate that we COGNITIVELY SPECIATE.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-17 00:27:49 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-16 16:38:28 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. (From elsewhere) If this thread was on one of

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (From elsewhere)
    If this thread was on one of my pages I would prune the comments above.

    1) The point of sharing this set of images is to illustrate that demonstrated intelligence contains specializations (divergencies).
    2) So not only are there cognitive biases in the low end but the high.
    3) This knowledge helps understand our cognitive biases at all levels is consistent in structure (white matter organization and density) not just chemistry.
    4) The odd observation that people at the high end of the distribution think extremely differently from people at the bottom of the distribution, who think very similarly.
    5) We do attract an odd distribution over 130 here, and a few over 150, but it is combined with a certain category of personality types in the intellectual end, material in the middle, and a moral predisposition at the lower.
    6) And lastly a constant reminder that I do not claim to be one of the few with equidistribution of ability at the high end – I just have a rather extraordinary memory combined with an obsessive need for order, which results in an obsessive interest in logic and correspondence.

    So I am not sure this argument has any basis since (a) yes members of this group share certain specializations, and that they are consistent across the spectrum, (b) that I am and some of us are very clearly above the 130 and 145 thresholds and (c) we have not much choice in how we think only the interpersonal COMMENSURABILITY OF THE model we think with.(d) and that propertarianism provides both that commensurable model AND the political order that takes best advantage of it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-16 16:11:17 UTC

  • (From elsewhere) If this thread was on one of my pages I would prune the comment

    (From elsewhere)

    If this thread was on one of my pages I would prune the comments above.

    1) The point of sharing this set of images is to illustrate that demonstrated intelligence contains specializations (divergencies).

    2) So not only are there cognitive biases in the low end but the high.

    3) This knowledge helps understand our cognitive biases at all levels is consistent in structure (white matter organization and density) not just chemistry.

    4) The odd observation that people at the high end of the distribution think extremely differently from people at the bottom of the distribution, who think very similarly.

    5) We do attract an odd distribution over 130 here, and a few over 150, but it is combined with a certain category of personality types in the intellectual end, material in the middle, and a moral predisposition at the lower.

    6) And lastly a constant reminder that I do not claim to be one of the few with equidistribution of ability at the high end – I just have a rather extraordinary memory combined with an obsessive need for order, which results in an obsessive interest in logic and correspondence.

    So I am not sure this argument has any basis since (a) yes members of this group share certain specializations, and that they are consistent across the spectrum, (b) that I am and some of us are very clearly above the 130 and 145 thresholds and (c) we have not much choice in how we think only the interpersonal COMMENSURABILITY OF THE model we think with.(d) and that propertarianism provides both that commensurable model AND the political order that takes best advantage of it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-16 12:11:00 UTC

  • yeah. exactly

    yeah. exactly.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-15 18:58:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018570582395359232

    Reply addressees: @Voltaire1778__8 @ItzaBanans

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018528637623160832


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018528637623160832

  • What category is that?

    What category is that?


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-15 15:17:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018515007120838656

    Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim @egoissocial @IberianSoldier

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018512075633590272


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018512075633590272