Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • ORIGINS OF THE “INFANTILE GENERATION” As far as I know: 1) The last generation e

    ORIGINS OF THE “INFANTILE GENERATION”

    As far as I know:

    1) The last generation educated under pre-postmodern teachers and professors has been exiting participation (people are now in fifties to sixties or later). The generation of postmodern teachers and professors have tought this generation, at the same time parents have over protected, and immigrant labor has elminated demand for youth labor. And has communicated with smart phones rather than learned to drive, earn money, and integrate and cooperate with people holding different (more mature) views. This generation was not raised to be independent functioning adults, but pets, just as (beginning in the 1970s) relationships were not economic but ‘friendships’ which led to the higher divorce rates and the nearly ubiquitous ‘starter marriages’ that compensate (expensively) for failures to prepare children for adulthood.

    2) The (“pet generation”, Millennials, “I-Generation”) began entering the consumer customer base, entering the academic customer base, social media customer base, and graduating into the young-underpaid-wanna-be-journalist base, each market appealed to these new consumers.

    3) The same access that gives the alt-right influence on the internet gives the politically correct access on the internet. So the pet generation and the responsible remaining generations (the pet generation ends at 95 according to Haidt).

    4) The social media platforms and web news and entertainment sites are primarily populated by these people young (pet generation) individuals and they are creating demand in every market including the political market.

    5) The victim narrative plays well for first and second generation immigrants from underclasses, who have no chance of rotation out of the primarily genetic middle classes as did previous generations, because the post war economic advantage of labor has been neutralized by the universal adoption of literacy, education, consumer capitalism financed by fiat money and state credit capacity, and vast populations now competing with american labor.

    6) These factors are all coinciding with the one-to-one replacement of whites with hispanics, and the recognition by the white working classes that without elites they will be left behind to suffer equality with the new underclasses. Hence the increasing identification of race and party.

    I dunno. This is all pretty well studied material. The problem is – it’s contrary to both new-left and old right narratives. The republicans assumed as good fools of the enlightenment that the top and bottom would move toward the middle. It would have happened but immigration has masked the various immigrant state economies, with those lacking immigrant cities collapsing under the weight of New Deal and Great Society (Soviet style) relocation programs. Even those immigrant cities would collapse if not for debt capacity.

    Why this is difficult to understand is always beyond me.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 11:41:00 UTC

  • NEW TERRITORY Well, we are in new territory, because we have not been in a situa

    NEW TERRITORY
    Well, we are in new territory, because we have not been in a situation where women are able to produce sufficient income that they can pay other women to raise their children… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=288070785123152&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-28 23:08:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034578393243762689

  • NEW TERRITORY Well, we are in new territory, because we have not been in a situa

    NEW TERRITORY

    Well, we are in new territory, because we have not been in a situation where women are able to produce sufficient income that they can pay other women to raise their children before, rather than depend upon men for income (and defense). It’s just never happened before.

    There is no means of producing that kind of male leadership for approximately two thirds of males.

    Without the compromise of marriage and the family and the division of labor, under contemporary technology, women basically do not need men whatsoever, unless they can capture one of the top third of men. And that is what is happening. It’s working out for about half of men and the other half are basically screwed.

    There are means of fixing this problem so that we nullify the ancestral family in accordance with the new economic and biological reality. (Which in turn restores our pre-agrarian relationships to their evolutionary state: serial relationships where women are heads of ‘households’. And men rotate through them as desired. with brothers and uncles providing ingroup care rather than husbands providing that care. That’s what we did prior to agrarianism and agrarian marriage.

    The first is to end redistribution so that we account for the higher demands of men in slower maturity, greater cellular damage, greater illness bcause of it and greater care needed in old age because of it.

    And he second is we end redistribution due do children so that men can trade income for affection.

    The third is that we restore all male institutions that have existed throughout history, for the caretaking of excess males.

    The fourth is to separate male and female education again so that males can learn in a highly competitive environment.

    Fifth is to create separate houses of government for men and women so that the tendency of women to welcome invaders that will destroy the productive potential of men, and male’s tendency to want to subordinate women.

    Otherwise we get what we see is men creating a civil war, which is what ALWAYS HAPPENS when there is an excess of unsatisfied men.

    This basically ends the experiment with universal marriage as a means of defending the polity against women bearing childreen and forcing the cost upon the group/tribe/village/polity. This is no problem any longer because women are, in large part, doing do.

    Furthermore divorced single mothers prefer to not divide their attention between men and children. (data). So we can reverse the (relatively recent) male centered household, and create the mother centered houshold with the males transiting in and out of households as desired by the women.

    None of that asks anything of women other than to end income provided my men to women, and end political dominatino of one sex over the other. If men are economically unnecessary then they are. That is what has happened because of modernity and the pill. So marriage is only valuable to 1/3 of men and women, and the rest of the time, men are merely gene contributors. So what are we going to do with those extra men – if they don’t have anything to care about? ‘Cause history is very clear on this subject

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-28 19:07:00 UTC

  • LEFT(F) -VS- RIGHT(M) BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES The more left(feminine) we intuit t

    LEFT(F) -VS- RIGHT(M) BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES

    The more left(feminine) we intuit the more we seek conformity with the herd. The more right (masculine) we intuit, the more we seek allies in a… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=287976888465875&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-28 17:41:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034496205290651648

  • “Darn it, women are just awful, aren’t they? Still, chin-up, boys…wont be long

    —“Darn it, women are just awful, aren’t they? Still, chin-up, boys…wont be long until you lean, mean, problem solving machines successfully master artificial wombs and then you can be rid of the dead weight of womanhood.”— Lisa Outhwaite

    That’s not true. Women are WONDERFUL. It’s just that the MYTHOLOGY that we have constructed to justify marriage as a norm, no longer HOLDS, and the postmodern and feminist mythology is FALSE. Ergo, given our different reproductive strategies, different moral and preferential intuitions GIVEN those different and competing strategies, and the amount of agency we have in the interpersonal and political-military spheres of cognition, then we must find a means of cooperating now that the family has been destroyed by marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and the leftist (marxist-postmodernist) attack on western civilizatoins institutions of truth duty reciprocity, family civil society (voluntary production of commons). I mean, women have no idea that they are giving judaism and islam a foundation in this era just as they did in the ancient world, and are in the process of destroying the civilization in this era just as they did in the ancient.

    Men vote red. non-whites vote blue. and most white women defect blue. The only defectors are white women. Yet we have the only civilization that blues are trying to invade and be a part of.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-28 14:29:00 UTC

  • LEFT(F) -VS- RIGHT(M) BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES The more left(feminine) we intuit t

    LEFT(F) -VS- RIGHT(M) BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES

    The more left(feminine) we intuit the more we seek conformity with the herd. The more right (masculine) we intuit, the more we seek allies in a pack.

    Furthermore we choose our pack leaders, and we choose our packs, and our pack propaganda (signaling) and strategy (directness) by what we perceive as actionable and voluntary.

    And as such we form packs by class, and by class within age groups although they appear to be only younger(direct and tactical) and older(indirect and strategic) – as our energies (direct) and experience (indirect) warrant

    But whereas the left can be opportunistic, and the herd will follow opportunities. The right can be opportunistic, but will seize fewer opportunities, requiring more momentum and urgency for critical mass.

    And whereas the left herd follows opportunities they are opportunities against the right. Whereas the right packs seek only those opportunities to resist the left’s parasitism.

    So this is why I am still struggling with the Natsoc, WN, working classes – and for no reason. They need an opportunity to obtain what they want. But they can do nothing other than fight.

    So we are in a much harder position than the left. We are operating from a position of defense, and we have a harder time pulling together enough allies on critical mass, unless there is an event that provides possible movement for all.

    The herd all speaks the same language. The packs don’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-28 13:41:00 UTC

  • The Issue Is Smart Fractions

    —“In a developed country like Belgium with an average IQ of 100, thirty-four percent of the general population makes up its smart fraction. Morocco, in contrast, has an average IQ of 85. Less than eight percent of its people are capable of doing smart-fraction jobs, a fact made plain by its dreary third-world economy.”— Le Lion

  • The Issue Is Smart Fractions

    —“In a developed country like Belgium with an average IQ of 100, thirty-four percent of the general population makes up its smart fraction. Morocco, in contrast, has an average IQ of 85. Less than eight percent of its people are capable of doing smart-fraction jobs, a fact made plain by its dreary third-world economy.”— Le Lion

  • The Standard Deviation in IQ Is Misleading

    You know, I’ve tended to follow the consensus that 15 points is a standard deviation, in intelligence, but that doesn’t help so much because group standard deviations appear to range from 11 to 13, with 12.5 as the sort of median. Secondly, I’ve followed the convention of the center being 100. Both of these are kind of obscuring value. 1 – the sort of middle between expensive to train and inexpensive to train is actually 106. (I sort of think of human potential beginning in that area.) via Lion: —“A verbal IQ of about 106 defines the cognitive lower bound of the smart fraction. And, each percentage point increase in the “smart percent” is worth about $600 (1998) to per capita GDP.”— 2 – Every six points (about half a standard deviation) rather than seven, we see fairly rapid increases in ability. 3 – They suggest average is sort of 95-105, and that’s true, but that’s the arbitrary average of the population given the population. Instead, I would say the average begins at 105 or 106 (105 for simplicity’s sake), and that we are one half standard deviation below the minimum for the upper half to compensate for the lower. And one standard deviation or 12 points below the low end of the optimum for modernity. And that this minimum will increase from 112 to 118 over the next century (or faster). 4 – Roughly speaking 1/3 of the population, meaning the vast majority of the population under 95 has to disappear over the next few hundred years.

  • The Standard Deviation in IQ Is Misleading

    You know, I’ve tended to follow the consensus that 15 points is a standard deviation, in intelligence, but that doesn’t help so much because group standard deviations appear to range from 11 to 13, with 12.5 as the sort of median. Secondly, I’ve followed the convention of the center being 100. Both of these are kind of obscuring value. 1 – the sort of middle between expensive to train and inexpensive to train is actually 106. (I sort of think of human potential beginning in that area.) via Lion: —“A verbal IQ of about 106 defines the cognitive lower bound of the smart fraction. And, each percentage point increase in the “smart percent” is worth about $600 (1998) to per capita GDP.”— 2 – Every six points (about half a standard deviation) rather than seven, we see fairly rapid increases in ability. 3 – They suggest average is sort of 95-105, and that’s true, but that’s the arbitrary average of the population given the population. Instead, I would say the average begins at 105 or 106 (105 for simplicity’s sake), and that we are one half standard deviation below the minimum for the upper half to compensate for the lower. And one standard deviation or 12 points below the low end of the optimum for modernity. And that this minimum will increase from 112 to 118 over the next century (or faster). 4 – Roughly speaking 1/3 of the population, meaning the vast majority of the population under 95 has to disappear over the next few hundred years.