Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • Where Did It Start?

    Feb 9, 2020, 6:20 PM WHERE DID IT START?

    —“What part of the world did the gene for “higher IQ” start, and why?”—

    INTERESTING QUESTION 1) We seem to have been continuously evolving intelligence for a long time. It’s very difficult to make a case for intelligence developing in other than africa. It’s easy to make the case that between exiting africa and the present, selection pressure may have put serious upward pressure on groups in higher latitudes. But there isn’t any difference between a guy with a 140 iq from Ghana, a 140 iq from Beijing, a 140 IQ from Persia, and a 140 IQ from England that isn’t reducible to minor variations in the bias between verbal-experiential and spatial-mechanical abilities. 2) As far as I know, neoteny (reduction of rate and depth of sexual maturity) provides us with most of our gains in intelligence. 3) As far as I know the difference between the classes is genetic load (accumulated defects) in the lower classes. 4) As far as I know the primary difference between the races and sub races is the relative size of the lower classes, meaning that some groups are burdened with many more lower IQ people per high IQ person. This explains differences in averages. 5) As far as I know races, subraces, classes, and genders vary a bit by standard deviation in both intelligence, and personality traits, with both appearing to reflect degree of neoteny (asians most, then whites then mixes, then africans) 6) as far as I know there is no gene for higher IQ, so much as lower genetic load, larger brain volume, neurological density, and more time to mature. In other words, it works the other way around. 7) So you want a small lower class, the optimum degree of neoteny, a big brain with lots of neurons. Han Chinese (most Chinese are not Han) have large round heads, are highly neotenous to the point of producing negative side effects (higher emotional instability), and it seems that their intellectual peak is early. 8) The delta in intelligence between groups appears limited in the upper classes (at the same level of intelligence) but there appears to be different ability in the way intelligence is expressed between europeans, ashkenazi (half european jews), and east asians.

  • Where Did It Start?

    Feb 9, 2020, 6:20 PM WHERE DID IT START?

    —“What part of the world did the gene for “higher IQ” start, and why?”—

    INTERESTING QUESTION 1) We seem to have been continuously evolving intelligence for a long time. It’s very difficult to make a case for intelligence developing in other than africa. It’s easy to make the case that between exiting africa and the present, selection pressure may have put serious upward pressure on groups in higher latitudes. But there isn’t any difference between a guy with a 140 iq from Ghana, a 140 iq from Beijing, a 140 IQ from Persia, and a 140 IQ from England that isn’t reducible to minor variations in the bias between verbal-experiential and spatial-mechanical abilities. 2) As far as I know, neoteny (reduction of rate and depth of sexual maturity) provides us with most of our gains in intelligence. 3) As far as I know the difference between the classes is genetic load (accumulated defects) in the lower classes. 4) As far as I know the primary difference between the races and sub races is the relative size of the lower classes, meaning that some groups are burdened with many more lower IQ people per high IQ person. This explains differences in averages. 5) As far as I know races, subraces, classes, and genders vary a bit by standard deviation in both intelligence, and personality traits, with both appearing to reflect degree of neoteny (asians most, then whites then mixes, then africans) 6) as far as I know there is no gene for higher IQ, so much as lower genetic load, larger brain volume, neurological density, and more time to mature. In other words, it works the other way around. 7) So you want a small lower class, the optimum degree of neoteny, a big brain with lots of neurons. Han Chinese (most Chinese are not Han) have large round heads, are highly neotenous to the point of producing negative side effects (higher emotional instability), and it seems that their intellectual peak is early. 8) The delta in intelligence between groups appears limited in the upper classes (at the same level of intelligence) but there appears to be different ability in the way intelligence is expressed between europeans, ashkenazi (half european jews), and east asians.

  • What About Causality in Thought?

    Feb 11, 2020, 8:58 AM

    —“What do you call the interplay between human thoughts, if not “causality”?—Ben Quimby

    Auto-Association to Free Association to Focused Association. A chaotic (‘idiosyncratic’) accumulation of neural patterns using the grammar of the body (that’s our neural grammar), produces an equally idiosyncratic free associations, that due to thee regularity of the perceivable universe, and the regularity of the grammar of the body, converge within the limits of tolerance for error of the neural network. So just as causal density at the pre-particle level is chaotic within the limits of the grammar of particle formation, so is the causal density chaotic at the pre-rational neuro-associative level within the limits of the grammar of body’s sensory associative formation. Grammars (language) in everything.

  • What About Causality in Thought?

    Feb 11, 2020, 8:58 AM

    —“What do you call the interplay between human thoughts, if not “causality”?—Ben Quimby

    Auto-Association to Free Association to Focused Association. A chaotic (‘idiosyncratic’) accumulation of neural patterns using the grammar of the body (that’s our neural grammar), produces an equally idiosyncratic free associations, that due to thee regularity of the perceivable universe, and the regularity of the grammar of the body, converge within the limits of tolerance for error of the neural network. So just as causal density at the pre-particle level is chaotic within the limits of the grammar of particle formation, so is the causal density chaotic at the pre-rational neuro-associative level within the limits of the grammar of body’s sensory associative formation. Grammars (language) in everything.

  • Be a Man. Get Fit ‘Enough’. That’s All It Takes.

    Feb 11, 2020, 9:28 AM

    —“One of many duties that man has under P is that he is a warrior. My advice, hit the range and train MMA. Sharpen your eye, harden the body. My take is that a martial art in it of it self is a pure and physical form a reciprocity. Under P, lying is a serious offense. Step into the gym, the mat never lies. Wrestling as you know was a huge part of Greco-Roman culture. It tests a man’s spirit and his resolve. And you get what you give. The more you sweat, the less you bleed. Stay honed. If your always ready, then you never have to get ready again.”—Torey Eric Anderson

    Be a man. Get fit ‘enough’. That’s all it takes. The first 20% of the training gives 80% of the value

  • Be a Man. Get Fit ‘Enough’. That’s All It Takes.

    Feb 11, 2020, 9:28 AM

    —“One of many duties that man has under P is that he is a warrior. My advice, hit the range and train MMA. Sharpen your eye, harden the body. My take is that a martial art in it of it self is a pure and physical form a reciprocity. Under P, lying is a serious offense. Step into the gym, the mat never lies. Wrestling as you know was a huge part of Greco-Roman culture. It tests a man’s spirit and his resolve. And you get what you give. The more you sweat, the less you bleed. Stay honed. If your always ready, then you never have to get ready again.”—Torey Eric Anderson

    Be a man. Get fit ‘enough’. That’s all it takes. The first 20% of the training gives 80% of the value

  • Judge Men’s Sanity

    Feb 11, 2020, 9:50 AM SANITY TEST

    —“I’ve adopted Hume’s argument that we should judge men’s sanity by the extent their decisions appear determined by the external causes.”—Martin Štěpán

    Smart.

  • Judge Men’s Sanity

    Feb 11, 2020, 9:50 AM SANITY TEST

    —“I’ve adopted Hume’s argument that we should judge men’s sanity by the extent their decisions appear determined by the external causes.”—Martin Štěpán

    Smart.

  • Free Will and Determinism (deterministic Universe)

    Feb 11, 2020, 2:26 PM

    —“Could you say then that free will is a sort of emergent property of determinism?”—Andy Lunn

    Maybe I don’t understand that question enough. We have will. That’s a fact. We evolved for graceful failure in exercise of our will – so that is what we interpret as somtimes lacking free will. We evolved for incremental improvement of our knowledge, and then our will as a consequence. The degree to which we develop our will (ability) into agency (successful application) depends on ability, experience, training and general knowledge. So the question isn’t do we have free will, it’s that we evolved will and the capacity to develop agency with it. But we are limited by our knowledge. We do not appear to be otherwise limited simply because we are so good at building tools that extend our sense, perception and action. Now, within that context, if you mean, that without a deterministic universe (the scientific definition of determinism, not the sophomoric and philosophical definition), then yes, we could never develop agency because there would be no regularity, and without regularity no use for memory, and without memory there would be no use for will reason, or agency. So in that sense, yes. But only in that sense.

  • Free Will and Determinism (deterministic Universe)

    Feb 11, 2020, 2:26 PM

    —“Could you say then that free will is a sort of emergent property of determinism?”—Andy Lunn

    Maybe I don’t understand that question enough. We have will. That’s a fact. We evolved for graceful failure in exercise of our will – so that is what we interpret as somtimes lacking free will. We evolved for incremental improvement of our knowledge, and then our will as a consequence. The degree to which we develop our will (ability) into agency (successful application) depends on ability, experience, training and general knowledge. So the question isn’t do we have free will, it’s that we evolved will and the capacity to develop agency with it. But we are limited by our knowledge. We do not appear to be otherwise limited simply because we are so good at building tools that extend our sense, perception and action. Now, within that context, if you mean, that without a deterministic universe (the scientific definition of determinism, not the sophomoric and philosophical definition), then yes, we could never develop agency because there would be no regularity, and without regularity no use for memory, and without memory there would be no use for will reason, or agency. So in that sense, yes. But only in that sense.