Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/44882467_10156736908502264_77700017

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/44882467_10156736908502264_77700017

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/44882467_10156736908502264_7770001755823144960_n_10156736908487264.jpg ON OPTIMUM PERSONALITY

    (from Marginal Revolution)

    https://t.co/eh4rRr2Jkp

    Toward a theory of optimal personality?

    If you are too conscientious, you might experience undue stress during a negative performance review. Or being too agreeable is correlated with lower salary levels, especially for men. And surely too much extroversion and too much openness are possible too?

    Rolf Degen reproduces a few relevant paragraphs from a new paper. The work is by Nathan T. Carter, Joshua D. Miller, and Thomas A. Widiger, here is one excerpt from their abstract:

    …researchers have only recently begun to uncover evidence that extreme standing on “normal” or “desirable” personality traits might be maladaptive…many more people possess optimal personality-trait levels than previously thought…

    —CURT—

    What I like about this is evolution from (a) Freudian (clown world), (b) jungian( better and close to literary evidence), (c) big 5 better but therapeutic so seeking IDEAL rather than optimum NETWORK (Division of Labor) traits which results in different distributions of traits.

    Rolf, DIdn’t you recently promote that paper on clustering in the big 5? That was premature but closer to my understanding of the division of perceptual, cognitive, negotiative, labor.ON OPTIMUM PERSONALITY

    (from Marginal Revolution)

    https://t.co/eh4rRr2Jkp

    Toward a theory of optimal personality?

    If you are too conscientious, you might experience undue stress during a negative performance review. Or being too agreeable is correlated with lower salary levels, especially for men. And surely too much extroversion and too much openness are possible too?

    Rolf Degen reproduces a few relevant paragraphs from a new paper. The work is by Nathan T. Carter, Joshua D. Miller, and Thomas A. Widiger, here is one excerpt from their abstract:

    …researchers have only recently begun to uncover evidence that extreme standing on “normal” or “desirable” personality traits might be maladaptive…many more people possess optimal personality-trait levels than previously thought…

    —CURT—

    What I like about this is evolution from (a) Freudian (clown world), (b) jungian( better and close to literary evidence), (c) big 5 better but therapeutic so seeking IDEAL rather than optimum NETWORK (Division of Labor) traits which results in different distributions of traits.

    Rolf, DIdn’t you recently promote that paper on clustering in the big 5? That was premature but closer to my understanding of the division of perceptual, cognitive, negotiative, labor.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 15:52:00 UTC

  • Men talk to women as potential customers, and women talk to men as vendors. You

    Men talk to women as potential customers, and women talk to men as vendors. You know. that’s the best analogy I’ve seen yet.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 15:28:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056206029233577984

  • (Woman nagging me) “… I just told you” “Tell me again. Maybe this time I will

    (Woman nagging me)
    “… I just told you”
    “Tell me again. Maybe this time I will listen <laughter>”
    “… <exasperation>…”
    “It’s part of man-training: how to not listen to women. … It falls under Survival Skills.”

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 13:11:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056171524372205569

  • We assume what we intuit from our childhood is natural rather than taught. What

    We assume what we intuit from our childhood is natural rather than taught. What moves us is well understood. The question is why some of us are taught it via nonsense and some of us not. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 12:18:00 UTC

  • MALE RECIPROCATION OF THE SH_T-TEST? (sarcastic humor) ( Humoring women is the m

    MALE RECIPROCATION OF THE SH_T-TEST?

    (sarcastic humor)

    (

    Humoring women is the means of reciprocating the sh-t test.

    They sh-t test. They sh-t test men constantly. Daily. Hourly.

    We respond with “You don’t expect me to take you seriously do you?”

    And that is how we reciprocate. By using “taking you seriously” as a scarcity.

    And then we do what we want, and once in a while satisfy one of the woman’s ‘urges'(nagging) in exchange for her satisfying one of our ‘urges’ (‘prostate exercise’).

    This process continues indefinitely. sh-t test (nag/degrade) -> Humor (laugh-off/degrade) -> Trade -> Repeat Ad Infinitum.

    Never let women have the illusion that they are in control. (a) they don’t really want it – they want to be certain YOU are in control so they can fuss about makeup and shoes, and whether their best friends third best friend is getting the one-up on her in gossip. (b) you aren’t INTERESTING if you can be bossed around, rather than manipulated.

    It’s a FUN GAME you just gotta play by the real rules rather than the rules people tell you to.

    )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 11:52:00 UTC

  • WHAT DEFINES ‘HUMAN’? —“Is it possible that you have too high a standard for w

    WHAT DEFINES ‘HUMAN’?

    —“Is it possible that you have too high a standard for what qualifies as human?”– Joel Harvey

    Well that begs the question standard for what purpose?

    1 – For cooperating commercially (trade on means) – yes.

    2 – For socializing (exchanging information – on ends) – no.

    3 – For political organization (cooperating on ends and means) – absolutely not.

    One does not let wild animals, domesticated animals, domesticated pets, children, or insufficiently domesticated and trained humans to influence that which they lack the agency to decide without harm to others.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 11:41:00 UTC

  • Men talk to women as potential customers, and women talk to men as vendors. You

    Men talk to women as potential customers, and women talk to men as vendors. You know. that’s the best analogy I’ve seen yet.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 11:28:00 UTC

  • WHO IS AND ISN’T HUMAN? —“Curt, Who isn’t currently human?”—Joel Harvey Is t

    WHO IS AND ISN’T HUMAN?

    —“Curt, Who isn’t currently human?”—Joel Harvey

    Is the line of demarcation between human and animal:

    1) Morphology?

    2) Sentience? (Reaction to stimuli)

    3) Awareness? (Sympathy-intent/Empathy-experience/Imitation-action)

    4) Speech?

    5) Reason? (Agency)

    As far as I know, it is reason and agency which separates us from the animals.

    That means very few of us are yet human. The rest are in different stages of domesticated animal.

    And I suspect that number (percentage) corresponds to the pareto minimum.

    Yes, really.

    Our process of self domestication is far from complete. It is merely sufficient for west and to a lesser degree, east, to drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, filth, poverty, starvation, disease, plagues, suffering, child mortality, early death, continuous violence, and the vicissitudes of nature.

    |HUMAN| The gods we aspire to be < Trained Humans < untrained humans < trained animals < untrained animals < untrainable animals.

    We domesticated plants, those animals we could domesticate, and those humans we could domesticate.

    We just left the job unfinished.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 11:10:00 UTC

  • ARGUING WITH THE LEFT (FEMININE-COGNITIVE PROCESS) MALE —“I knew it, A veritab

    ARGUING WITH THE LEFT (FEMININE-COGNITIVE PROCESS) MALE

    —“I knew it, A veritable scream, I would play organ music and do bongs whilst you chanted in the corner, Ya crack stinks fella, Keep it snappy, 5-second attention span when looking at anything that doesn’t flash, squelch or explode.”— Damien Woodgate

    ^ Again. A statement of psychologism, the feminine substitute for argument, by use of “disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossiping, rallying, reputation destruction, and straw manning”, where the “straw manning” most commonly consists of mirroring the feminine emotional overwhelming of any semblance of agency or reason.

    Statement of fact. You have no intrinsic value. You have no value to me or mine. You cannot use the tactics of females because you do not have sex, affection, care, reproduction, or ally-negotiation to trade. You must produce some form of value to trade with me and mine, and demonstrate your fitness to trade with me and mine, BEFORE you have any value, and therefore BEFORE your attempted threat of non-cooperation, undermining, reputation destruction has any persuasive value.

    There is a reason for paternalism: sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, rule of law, and markets in everything – so that we domesticate the animals-that-speak, into the humans through training, education, and controlling their breeding.

    We domesticated the animal man. We have unfortunately left the job incomplete – as only some of us are currently human.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 10:58:00 UTC

  • CHOICE WORDS OF ARGUMENT —Your method of ‘argument’ (non-argument) only works

    CHOICE WORDS OF ARGUMENT

    —Your method of ‘argument’ (non-argument) only works if (a) you are kin, and (b) you are a woman and can create future kin. Otherwise you are just an opportunity or a cost.

    A man in rhetorical petticoats has nothing to trade.

    You have no intrinsic value.

    None.—

    When a leftist male argues to ‘feels’ and ‘equality’ and ‘dysgenia’ producing decline, rather than Reals, Inequality, and Eugenia producing Transcendence.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 10:13:00 UTC