Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Auron; I’ve gone from being a libertarian, and forgiving a few eccentricities to

    Auron;
    I’ve gone from being a libertarian, and forgiving a few eccentricities to debunking their middle class marxism and despising them.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-08 18:53:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1931786614721937842

  • I am afraid I don’t even understand this criticism. (a) it could be you do not g

    I am afraid I don’t even understand this criticism.
    (a) it could be you do not grasp how little individuals matter and instead how much circumstances promote individuals into power. This is one of the most common mistakes in historical analysis.
    (b) It could be you are trying to make some point about organizing violence. If so I don’t understand what point. It’s certainly not that we faiil to address it. IN fact most of my presentation last fall in Texas explained it in detail.

    So I’m sort of lost here.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-06 23:46:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1931135728001651013

  • Curious. Why would it matter who said it? 😉 FYI: It’s a paraphrase of a russian

    Curious. Why would it matter who said it? 😉

    FYI: It’s a paraphrase of a russian intellectual explaining how the west doesn’t understand russia – and russia can’t comprehend the west: they have no experience with trust just as we have too little experience with other civilizations’ low trust.
    For Russia it’s a legacy of not only their own communists and the import of jewish pilpul and critique by them for propaganda, but their boyars before them, and the mongols before them.
    Worse they were all effectively slaves (Serfs) and only ‘free’ for a few decades between serfdom and communism. So they have no experience with the rise of middle classes which is the origin of scaling trust from the familial or tribal to the general political (society, market).
    When I travel through Russia I have fun asking the question: “If one person tells a lie to another, who is at fault – the liar or the believer of the lie.” In most of the world it’s the liar. In russia it’s the believer of the lie. This little experiment tells you a great deal about russian civilization.
    It also tells you why they think we are deceptive rather than naive and hypermoral. Our unconscious trust informs everything we do. So, you know, hence why our ‘tolerance’ has been suicidal. Because we expect the best of one another (trust) we assume the best of others. Yet we are, other than the japanese, the only high trust civilization. Even then it applies almost entirely to germanic europe.
    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-04 17:30:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1930316186023276646

  • Sorry man. Unless it’s painfully obvious, sarcastic humor is oft indistinguishab

    Sorry man. Unless it’s painfully obvious, sarcastic humor is oft indistinguishable from contemporary mass idiocy. ;).

    hugs 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-03 19:49:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1929988940574142662

  • Science has proven the opposite. Don’t lie. Even if you like out of ignorance an

    Science has proven the opposite. Don’t lie. Even if you like out of ignorance and incompetence. Rule of thumb is that the average 14 year old boy can defeat mature professional female athletes.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-03 18:07:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1929963048783229105

  • Quite a few of them. There is a video on it on our YT channel under The Method p

    Quite a few of them. There is a video on it on our YT channel under The Method playlist, and in the videos covering “Terms”.
    https://
    youtube.com/watch?v=VqhkEP
    mhXLw&list=PLnyifULzMnvkreeTqzEOBaAW4f0oWy0B4
    …

    Though I think you misunderstand: “Disambiguation by operationalization, serialization, and adversarialism” – it means we make definitions unambiguous and non overlapping so that they are ‘deflationary’ (non inflationary and closed to ambiguity).

    This is part of ensuring that when we speak we are doing so commensurably because our terms are commensurable. And it defends against most sophistry by substitution, conflation, and inflation.

    To test truth we test the testifiability of the ten or so dimensions humans can possibly testify to. So between the unambiguousness of terms, the truth test, the reciprocity test, and the first principles exposed by the ternary logic of evolutionary computation, we can pretty much test every statement for whether it’s a possible truth claim – and better – we can determine the motive to deceive if one claims the unjustifiable as true.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-03 18:03:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1929962152166863098

  • Most of the intro articles we’re producing are here on substack. I didn’t think

    Most of the intro articles we’re producing are here on substack. I didn’t think of sending you there immediately. But it’s a good choice.

    https://curtdoolittle.substack.com

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-03 17:30:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1929953903405347206

  • If it was simple someone would have done it before. There are foundation videos

    If it was simple someone would have done it before.
    There are foundation videos on our youtube channel.
    You can follow me and the rest of the team, and look through my (our) past articles and posts.
    Or you can wait until we publish volumes 1 and 2 this fall.
    The information is all publicly available but the books present the information in organized form.
    If you can ask this caliber of questions you have been, with a bit of work, understand it. The outline of it all is quite simple, using it as a methodology just takes ‘relearning’.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-03 17:25:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1929952640454275375

  • Interesting

    Interesting…

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-03 16:10:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1929933620661362707

  • Great question. But it’s just that you’re new to my work and the work of the fel

    Great question. But it’s just that you’re new to my work and the work of the fellows as the institute. (Natural Law Institute) so you’re dropping into the middle of a discourse that’s confusing:

    1) The claim of a Natural Law to which man can optimally adhere (a science of cooperation) has evolved through a number of logical constraints over the millennia.

    So, just as in:
    [animism > mythology > theology > philosophy > Empiricism > Science > Operationalism];

    We also see:
    [Aristotle’s natural law (Observable) > Aquinas’ Natural Law (Supernatural) > Founder’s (Blackstone) Natural Law (Ratio-Empirical) > Doolittle’s Natural Law (Scientific and Computational)].

    So in the sense we mean it we’re talking about a Science of Decidability applied to human cooperation resulting in a Natural Law, that is strictly constructed from the first principles (laws of nature) of evolutionary computation (evolution).

    I hope that helps.
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2025-06-03 15:54:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1929929673338982894