Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • Being Left Behind

    The degree to which the cognitively female mind calculates and intuits the possibility of ‘being left behind’ is beyond conservative comprehension. They obsess about being left behind the way we obsess about being out-competed..

    —“Rooted in their fear of the unknown. Which is invisible to those who don’t see the unknown; rather to them, the future exists as a collection of probabilities.”—Andrew M Gilmour

    —“Left behind is a cousin of loss of face – think of it as facets of social life. Hypergamy – why is my husband unable to provide like my friends husband? Left behind – I can’t/don’t want to provide for myself / I need or man or a tribe of men via the state to provide for me and mine (female solipsism allows them to be ok with this without shame as a man would). Loss of face – my husband and cheated on me with my girlfriends and all my friends know and didn’t tell me.”—by Gary Knight

  • Threat Perception in Internet Age

    Feb 1, 2020, 8:43 PM by Bill Joslin I think the threat detection issue spans the entire political, soci-economic bell curve. i think think this stems from “threat signal saturation”. I suspect threat saturation disrupts friend foe identification. friend foe identification expresses differently across the bell curves – The left has an inverted identification – where in-group competitive drives supersede predator proximity drives. And the right has an amplified “err on the side of false positives” where proximity sensitivity becomes applied to friends. In both cases this results in a positive feedback loop which exacerbates the problem. We live with a nightmarish degree of anomie – social instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values. In rat utopia, normie rats in proximity to the beautiful ones display this behavior – obsessive territorial marking – because they lose the ability to tell the difference from fellow colony marking from adversarial markings.

  • Threat Perception in Internet Age

    Feb 1, 2020, 8:43 PM by Bill Joslin I think the threat detection issue spans the entire political, soci-economic bell curve. i think think this stems from “threat signal saturation”. I suspect threat saturation disrupts friend foe identification. friend foe identification expresses differently across the bell curves – The left has an inverted identification – where in-group competitive drives supersede predator proximity drives. And the right has an amplified “err on the side of false positives” where proximity sensitivity becomes applied to friends. In both cases this results in a positive feedback loop which exacerbates the problem. We live with a nightmarish degree of anomie – social instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values. In rat utopia, normie rats in proximity to the beautiful ones display this behavior – obsessive territorial marking – because they lose the ability to tell the difference from fellow colony marking from adversarial markings.

  • SOME COGNITIVE BIASES TO CONSIDER 😉

    SOME COGNITIVE BIASES TO CONSIDER 😉 https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/some-cognitive-biases-to-consider/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 20:25:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264653730911223815

  • SOME COGNITIVE BIASES TO CONSIDER 😉

      False uniqueness bias …The tendency of people to see their projects and themselves as more singular than they actually are. False consensus effect … The tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them Bandwagon effect … The tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior Empathy gap … The tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either oneself or others Groupthink … Where the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Shared information bias … The tendency for group members to spend more time and energy discussing information that all members are already familiar with (i.e., shared information), and less time and energy discussing information that only some members are aware of (i.e., unshared information). Illusion of asymmetric insight …People perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers’ knowledge of them Illusion of transparency … People overestimate others’ ability to know themselves, and they also overestimate their ability to know others. Dunning–Kruger effect … The tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their own ability and the tendency for experts to underestimate their own ability Curse of knowledge … When better-informed people find it extremely difficult to think about problems from the perspective of lesser-informed people Illusory superiority … Overestimating one’s desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable qualities, relative to other people. (Also known as “better-than-average effect”, or “superiority bias”.) Naïve realism … The belief that we see reality objectively and without bias; that the facts are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and that those who don’t are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased. Just-world hypothesis … The tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just, causing them to rationalize an otherwise inexplicable injustice as deserved by the victim(s). Ambiguity effect … The tendency to avoid options for which the probability of a favorable outcome is unknown Anchoring …. The tendency to rely too heavily, or “anchor”, on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (usually the first piece of information acquired on that subject) Doubling Down … Or Backfire effect. The reaction to disconfirming evidence by strengthening one’s previous beliefs.

  • SOME COGNITIVE BIASES TO CONSIDER 😉

      False uniqueness bias …The tendency of people to see their projects and themselves as more singular than they actually are. False consensus effect … The tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them Bandwagon effect … The tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior Empathy gap … The tendency to underestimate the influence or strength of feelings, in either oneself or others Groupthink … Where the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Shared information bias … The tendency for group members to spend more time and energy discussing information that all members are already familiar with (i.e., shared information), and less time and energy discussing information that only some members are aware of (i.e., unshared information). Illusion of asymmetric insight …People perceive their knowledge of their peers to surpass their peers’ knowledge of them Illusion of transparency … People overestimate others’ ability to know themselves, and they also overestimate their ability to know others. Dunning–Kruger effect … The tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their own ability and the tendency for experts to underestimate their own ability Curse of knowledge … When better-informed people find it extremely difficult to think about problems from the perspective of lesser-informed people Illusory superiority … Overestimating one’s desirable qualities, and underestimating undesirable qualities, relative to other people. (Also known as “better-than-average effect”, or “superiority bias”.) Naïve realism … The belief that we see reality objectively and without bias; that the facts are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and that those who don’t are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased. Just-world hypothesis … The tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just, causing them to rationalize an otherwise inexplicable injustice as deserved by the victim(s). Ambiguity effect … The tendency to avoid options for which the probability of a favorable outcome is unknown Anchoring …. The tendency to rely too heavily, or “anchor”, on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (usually the first piece of information acquired on that subject) Doubling Down … Or Backfire effect. The reaction to disconfirming evidence by strengthening one’s previous beliefs.

  • Why Do You Reduce so Much to Male vs Female?

    Why Do You Reduce so Much to Male vs Female? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/why-do-you-reduce-so-much-to-male-vs-female/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 20:23:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264653285094494208

  • Why Do You Reduce so Much to Male vs Female?

    Feb 3, 2020, 6:37 AM To explain causality. There are only so many dimensions of variation in human development with the most influential being the male-female, and the consequences of male-female developmental differences in cognitive emotional physical outcomes and the expression of sexual strategy in all three.

    1. Cognitive Spectrum: Female < Psychotic Solipsistic Sensitive Agreeable < Balanced > Disagreeable, Insensitive, Analytic, Autistic > Male

    2. Conflict: Female: Social Predation: Undermine Until Destroyed. Male: Political Predation: Fight For Position then Settle.

    This pair of differences explain the Left(Female Social Temporal Consumptive Strategy) vs Right (Male Political Intertemporal Capitalizing Strategy) and (a) our political differences are not a choice (b) they are no longer compatible and we need to separate and speciate. Conservative (european) market order is the compromise between the gender strategies, at the cost of limiting the reproduction of the unproductive. All other strategies are MORE male, and the left wants MORE female. Ok. Have it. Separate Specialize. And you will have slums.

  • Why Do You Reduce so Much to Male vs Female?

    Feb 3, 2020, 6:37 AM To explain causality. There are only so many dimensions of variation in human development with the most influential being the male-female, and the consequences of male-female developmental differences in cognitive emotional physical outcomes and the expression of sexual strategy in all three.

    1. Cognitive Spectrum: Female < Psychotic Solipsistic Sensitive Agreeable < Balanced > Disagreeable, Insensitive, Analytic, Autistic > Male

    2. Conflict: Female: Social Predation: Undermine Until Destroyed. Male: Political Predation: Fight For Position then Settle.

    This pair of differences explain the Left(Female Social Temporal Consumptive Strategy) vs Right (Male Political Intertemporal Capitalizing Strategy) and (a) our political differences are not a choice (b) they are no longer compatible and we need to separate and speciate. Conservative (european) market order is the compromise between the gender strategies, at the cost of limiting the reproduction of the unproductive. All other strategies are MORE male, and the left wants MORE female. Ok. Have it. Separate Specialize. And you will have slums.

  • Unregulated (Without Limits) Women

    Unregulated (Without Limits) Women https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/unregulated-without-limits-women/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 20:21:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264652830742323202