Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • WHY TROLLS CAN DEFEAT ME. AN EXAMPLE FROM DISCORD DEBATE (Twitter argument with

    WHY TROLLS CAN DEFEAT ME. AN EXAMPLE FROM DISCORD DEBATE

    (Twitter argument with someone from Discord regarding a previous argument.)

    Truth is truth is truth, and opinion is opinion. Sorry. I do science and truth.

    —“You seem to be struggling to understand my point: I don’t care about accusations against a person’s character. A remorseless Bayesian pursuit is obviously more evolutionarily sustainable. I just was wanting to see some logical consistency out of you.”—-

    (NOTE: he’s saying the emotional changes in state (feelings) are equivalent to thefts (imposition of costs on an individual and group’s investments).

    (NOTE: His criticisms of me over time have always been effectively that I’m heartless but they mean that my efforts cannot be applied to his interests and I am immune to emotional coercions. )

    Again, and ad hom rather than argue the truth or falsehood of the central argument.

    (BTW: I’ve made multiple fortunes, and on average, in all of history it takes 10 years to produce a work of this complexity. & I’m just probably three standard deviations in IQ above you. Sorry.)

    (THESE TWO ARE THE ICING ON THE CAKE)

    —“Oh, the king of ad hom wants to now cry about it. Sorry, that’s not how war works, right, Mr. pot-bellied, girly-legged 5’4″ Aristocratic Warrior? No, what you are is an antisocial catastrophe and most in the inner circle have confessed to it. You will continue to be a nobody.”—

    —“And yet you have no formal training in science of any kind, let alone advanced as I do, and you get turned into a rag doll by people with actual formal training in mathematics and philosophy. What you do is maintain a tiny FB circle and spend 10 years not publishing a book.”—-

    (a) Oh, I missed this one. Do you mean that ridiculous fellow on Chat who tried to equate LOGIC (rules of inference) with TRUTH (consistency, correspondence, and coherence), and outright denied (over and over and over again) that logic consists of tests of constant relations?

    (b) and I lost my temper because of his dishonesty? ( yeah. Its possible. I have a thing about dishonest people trolling me. ) I kept trying to circumvent his trolling and force the central argument, and I let him get my goat. For certain.

    (c)And that’s before we get to logic’s dependence upon premises (justifications), and science (truth) isn’t but dependent on survival from criticism. So while a logical inference may be not false, it says nothing about the premises.

    (d)So I’m stuck in a position with a dishonest if not ignorant opponent, trolling me, denying the constitution of logic itself, conflating states of existence, equating inference with correspondence, and an audience equally ignorant. I just stayed on message: Stop denying.

    (d) Deal with it. Either I was right and all any and all the logics consist of deflationary (limited) grammars (rules) by which we reduce the complexity of constant relations between states, where constant relations are limited to relations of analogies to experience – or not.

    (e) And that there is a vast difference between consistency correspondence, coherence of premises and conclusions(science), than between premises, deductions, and inferences (logic). Find some adult who can handle that discourse. it CAN’T be false.

    f) No matter how pissed dishonest trolls make me. And it is quite possible to piss me off furiously by dishonest trolling. Yes. And I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 08:54:00 UTC

  • —“Can Someone Put This In Common Language?”—

    —“CAN SOMEONE PUT THIS IN COMMON LANGUAGE?”— Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker (a) We spend a lot of money on anti-terrorism (the islamic counter-revolution against modernity, which is the latest iteration of the Ashkenazi counter-revolution (marx, freud, boaz, cantor), and the German( Kant, Hegel, etc), French v1(Rousseau) and v2 (Derrida et all). Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker (b) Very few people are killed by terrorists. (ie: “6 people”). (c) we have many diseases (actually there are only ten that account for almost all deaths, and they are deaths of accumulated cellular damage). And we might cure those diseases instead with money spent on terror. Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker (d) but the cost disease is slow and does not interfere with the world, economic, political, social, and familial ‘velocity of cooperation’ (stuff we do). While the cost of terrorism and its ability to spread is very high (civilizational). Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker (e) We can easily see the costs of the plagues and major diseases. What has it cost us to cure Abrahamism? And its successors, Marxism, Postmodernism, leaving the compromise social democracy? The SEEN and the UNSEEN.

  • —“Can Someone Put This In Common Language?”—

    —“CAN SOMEONE PUT THIS IN COMMON LANGUAGE?”— Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker (a) We spend a lot of money on anti-terrorism (the islamic counter-revolution against modernity, which is the latest iteration of the Ashkenazi counter-revolution (marx, freud, boaz, cantor), and the German( Kant, Hegel, etc), French v1(Rousseau) and v2 (Derrida et all). Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker (b) Very few people are killed by terrorists. (ie: “6 people”). (c) we have many diseases (actually there are only ten that account for almost all deaths, and they are deaths of accumulated cellular damage). And we might cure those diseases instead with money spent on terror. Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker (d) but the cost disease is slow and does not interfere with the world, economic, political, social, and familial ‘velocity of cooperation’ (stuff we do). While the cost of terrorism and its ability to spread is very high (civilizational). Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker (e) We can easily see the costs of the plagues and major diseases. What has it cost us to cure Abrahamism? And its successors, Marxism, Postmodernism, leaving the compromise social democracy? The SEEN and the UNSEEN.

  • “CAN SOMEONE PUT THIS IN COMMON LANGUAGE?”— Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker

    —“CAN SOMEONE PUT THIS IN COMMON LANGUAGE?”—

    Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker

    (a) We spend a lot of money on anti-terrorism (the islamic counter-revolution against modernity, which is the latest iteration of the Ashkenazi counter-revolution (marx, freud, boaz, cantor), and the German( Kant, Hegel, etc), French v1(Rousseau) and v2 (Derrida et all).

    Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker

    (b) Very few people are killed by terrorists. (ie: “6 people”).

    (c) we have many diseases (actually there are only ten that account for almost all deaths, and they are deaths of accumulated cellular damage). And we might cure those diseases instead with money spent on terror.

    Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker

    (d) but the cost disease is slow and does not interfere with the world, economic, political, social, and familial ‘velocity of cooperation’ (stuff we do). While the cost of terrorism and its ability to spread is very high (civilizational).

    Replying to @jordanticus @sapinker

    (e) We can easily see the costs of the plagues and major diseases. What has it cost us to cure Abrahamism? And its successors, Marxism, Postmodernism, leaving the compromise social democracy? The SEEN and the UNSEEN.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 08:21:00 UTC

  • Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the maj

    Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the majority of BS degrees are in such pseudosciences, that’s a lot of blocking.)

    @Imperius__13

    Psychologizing broadly means mapping out the psychological motives of an individual’s actions and worldview. We all do it as we socially interact in the world, to friend and foe, and I’m not sure how you can’t say what Taleb mostly engages in is shaming and insultive suggestion.

    it’s still pseudoscience for the purpose of deception. Instead, map out incentives to seek to understand others, rather than imposing your incentives in order to shame others. All humans seek to acquire the full spectrum of material, relational, social, and intellectual capital.

    @Imperius__13

    Replying to @curtdoolittle @nntaleb

    Mapping out the incentives of an actor is still what it colloquially means to psychologize them; you’re attempting to get inside their head either way. And of this talk of imposing our own incentive structure, as if a Darwinian like you could imagine another possibility.

    No. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Psychology is nothing but a pseudoscientific fiction. That’s why they have reformed since 2000 so heavily. They’ve had to. Incentives are always explicable by rational choice to acquire. Period. Everything else is lying.

    The only reason to use the pseudoscience like psychology is to justify deceit, fraud, and theft.

    (NOTICE THE USE OF “Darwinian like you” as a means of psychologism, rather than the question of whether a statement is TRUE or not.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 07:24:00 UTC

  • Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the maj

    Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the majority of BS degrees are in such pseudosciences, that’s a lot of blocking.) @Imperius__13 Psychologizing broadly means mapping out the psychological motives of an individual’s actions and worldview. We all do it as we socially interact in the world, to friend and foe, and I’m not sure how you can’t say what Taleb mostly engages in is shaming and insultive suggestion. it’s still pseudoscience for the purpose of deception. Instead, map out incentives to seek to understand others, rather than imposing your incentives in order to shame others. All humans seek to acquire the full spectrum of material, relational, social, and intellectual capital. @Imperius__13 Replying to @curtdoolittle @nntaleb Mapping out the incentives of an actor is still what it colloquially means to psychologize them; you’re attempting to get inside their head either way. And of this talk of imposing our own incentive structure, as if a Darwinian like you could imagine another possibility. No. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Psychology is nothing but a pseudoscientific fiction. That’s why they have reformed since 2000 so heavily. They’ve had to. Incentives are always explicable by rational choice to acquire. Period. Everything else is lying. The only reason to use the pseudoscience like psychology is to justify deceit, fraud, and theft. (NOTICE THE USE OF “Darwinian like you” as a means of psychologism, rather than the question of whether a statement is TRUE or not.)

  • Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the maj

    Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the majority of BS degrees are in such pseudosciences, that’s a lot of blocking.) @Imperius__13 Psychologizing broadly means mapping out the psychological motives of an individual’s actions and worldview. We all do it as we socially interact in the world, to friend and foe, and I’m not sure how you can’t say what Taleb mostly engages in is shaming and insultive suggestion. it’s still pseudoscience for the purpose of deception. Instead, map out incentives to seek to understand others, rather than imposing your incentives in order to shame others. All humans seek to acquire the full spectrum of material, relational, social, and intellectual capital. @Imperius__13 Replying to @curtdoolittle @nntaleb Mapping out the incentives of an actor is still what it colloquially means to psychologize them; you’re attempting to get inside their head either way. And of this talk of imposing our own incentive structure, as if a Darwinian like you could imagine another possibility. No. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Psychology is nothing but a pseudoscientific fiction. That’s why they have reformed since 2000 so heavily. They’ve had to. Incentives are always explicable by rational choice to acquire. Period. Everything else is lying. The only reason to use the pseudoscience like psychology is to justify deceit, fraud, and theft. (NOTICE THE USE OF “Darwinian like you” as a means of psychologism, rather than the question of whether a statement is TRUE or not.)

  • “America’s not a nation anymore. It’s a porta-potty.”–Murray Sell

    –“America’s not a nation anymore. It’s a porta-potty.”–Murray Sell

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 07:23:00 UTC

  • Psychologizing makes use of pseudoscience to deceive, rally and shame. Blocking

    Psychologizing makes use of pseudoscience to deceive, rally and shame. Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the majority of BS degrees are in such pseudosciences, that’s a lot of blocking.)

    @Imperius__13

    Psychologizing broadly means mapping out the psychological motives of an individual’s actions and worldview. We all do it as we socially interact in the world, to friend and foe, and I’m not sure how you can’t say what Taleb mostly engages in is shaming and insultive suggestion.

    it’s still pseudoscience for the purpose of deception. Instead, map out incentives to seek to understand others, rather than imposing your incentives in order to shame others. All humans seek to acquire the full spectrum of material, relational, social, and intellectual capital.

    @Imperius__13

    Replying to @curtdoolittle @nntaleb

    Mapping out the incentives of an actor is still what it colloquially means to psychologize them; you’re attempting to get inside their head either way. And of this talk of imposing our own incentive structure, as if a Darwinian like you could imagine another possibility.

    No. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Psychology is nothing but a pseudoscientific fiction. That’s why they have reformed since 2000 so heavily. They’ve had to. Incentives are always explicable by rational choice to acquire. Period. Everything else is lying.

    The only reason to use the pseudoscience like psychology is to justify deceit, fraud, and theft.

    (NOTICE THE USE OF “Darwinian like you” as a means of psychologism, rather than the question of whether a statement is TRUE or not.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 07:13:00 UTC

  • Psychologizing makes use of pseudoscience to deceive, rally and shame. Blocking

    Psychologizing makes use of pseudoscience to deceive, rally and shame. Blocking pseudoscientists is just … scientific. ( Although, given that the majority of BS degrees are in such pseudosciences, that’s a lot of blocking.) @Imperius__13 Psychologizing broadly means mapping out the psychological motives of an individual’s actions and worldview. We all do it as we socially interact in the world, to friend and foe, and I’m not sure how you can’t say what Taleb mostly engages in is shaming and insultive suggestion. it’s still pseudoscience for the purpose of deception. Instead, map out incentives to seek to understand others, rather than imposing your incentives in order to shame others. All humans seek to acquire the full spectrum of material, relational, social, and intellectual capital. @Imperius__13 Replying to @curtdoolittle @nntaleb Mapping out the incentives of an actor is still what it colloquially means to psychologize them; you’re attempting to get inside their head either way. And of this talk of imposing our own incentive structure, as if a Darwinian like you could imagine another possibility. No. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Psychology is nothing but a pseudoscientific fiction. That’s why they have reformed since 2000 so heavily. They’ve had to. Incentives are always explicable by rational choice to acquire. Period. Everything else is lying. The only reason to use the pseudoscience like psychology is to justify deceit, fraud, and theft. (NOTICE THE USE OF “Darwinian like you” as a means of psychologism, rather than the question of whether a statement is TRUE or not.)