Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • EUGENICS VS. DYSGENICS by Ely Harman Eugenics is the tendency of genes to get “b

    EUGENICS VS. DYSGENICS

    by Ely Harman

    Eugenics is the tendency of genes to get “better.” It relates to politics because all policies are either Eugenic, they tend to make genes better, or they are “dysgenic,” they tend to make genes “worse.”

    I understand the definitions of “better” or “worse” are going to be a stumbling block for most people, since they seem kind of subjective. But I believe they have more or less objective definitions, at least as related to policy. A policy is eugenic if it selects for the genes that enable the policy to be carried into effect. And it is dysgenic if it selects for genes that disrupt, retard or arrest the policy itself or against genes that the policy relies upon.

    E.g. Insisting people feed themselves is a eugenic policy because it selects for people who can feed themselves, and against people who can’t. There is no systemic failure mode. Things only get better over time as individuals who fail to feed themselves remove their failure genes from the gene pool. But feeding people is a dysgenic policy because it selects for people who can’t feed themselves and against people who can feed them (the ability to feed people who can’t feed themselves becomes a burden, risk, and cost, because it carries the obligation to do so.) Thus, the latter policy will tend to break down over time as people who can’t feed themselves proliferate and the people who can feed them are consumed. But a eugenic policy can be maintained indefinitely and be built upon continuously.

    Put another way, Eugenia is the gradual, sustainable, accumulation and inprovement of genetic capital, that can be built upon with further improvements, while dysgenia is its consumption for the short term propagation of defective garbage.

    Accumulation vs. consumption. Production vs. parasitism. Eugenia vs. dysgenia.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 08:35:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. —“Genetic deviation between groups is small

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    —“Genetic deviation between groups is smaller than between individuals in the group.”—

    That is a meaningless truism that easily fools the innumerate.

    – ethnocentrism is the optimum group political strategy.
    – markets the optimum economic strategy.
    – eugenics the optimum group competitive strategy.
    – neoteny the optimum genetic strategy.

    Very minor variations in group genes produce very profound group outcomes.

    It appears that a relatively small number of genes (in the thousands) produces 100% of the competitive variation between groups (symmetry, neoteny, dimorphism).

    Meanwhile we have no idea how much of the genome is used (functional), which expressed (conditional), which unused (reserve) or noise (dead).

    As such, “deviation between groups vs individuals” is in itself true but by implication a profound deception (fraud).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 00:11:54 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. IS LEFTISM A DISEASE? WE ARE SPECIATING (divi

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    IS LEFTISM A DISEASE? WE ARE SPECIATING
    (dividing into species)

    —“Curt do you think that leftism is simply a mental illness or is there an actual reason why people adopt such an unreasonable belief system?”—

    I think it’s a pre-cognitive genetic (evolutionary) strategy that some people have evolved just as conservatism is a genetic (evolutionary) strategy that others have evolved.

    And I think the difference is caused by the female reproductive strategy that favors women and the lower classes, and male reproductive strategy that favors males and the middle/upper classes.

    And this is confirmed pretty simply by the reproductive attractiveness of conservatives and liberals. Conservatives tend to be more reproductively desirable, and have greater agency. These are genetic markers.

    My view is that we WERE speciating regionally by race when we discovered metalworking.

    My view is that we are wealthy enough to speciate by need for commons – and that’s what we are in the process of doing.

    And that the mistake is to think that our interests are better served by the production of COMPROMISE commons versus SPECIALIZED COMMONS that suit our reproductive strategies.

    All peoples are better served by the production of SPECIALIZED COMMONS. And we can (finally) afford to produce them.

    And that is what we see across the world.

    WE NEED TO SPECIATE.

    WOLVES(conservatives) Packs, and SHEEP(liberals) Herd.

    Revolt, Separate, Prosper, Speciate.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 22:13:28 UTC

  • Is Leftism a Disease? It’s Because We Are Speciating

    (dividing into species) —“Curt do you think that leftism is simply a mental illness or is there an actual reason why people adopt such an unreasonable belief system?”— I think it’s a pre-cognitive genetic (evolutionary) strategy that some people have evolved just as conservatism is a genetic (evolutionary) strategy that others have evolved. And I think the difference is caused by the female reproductive strategy that favors women and the lower classes, and male reproductive strategy that favors males and the middle/upper classes. And this is confirmed pretty simply by the reproductive attractiveness of conservatives and liberals. Conservatives tend to be more reproductively desirable, and have greater agency. These are genetic markers. My view is that we WERE speciating regionally by race when we discovered metalworking. My view is that we are wealthy enough to speciate by need for commons – and that’s what we are in the process of doing. And that the mistake is to think that our interests are better served by the production of COMPROMISE commons versus SPECIALIZED COMMONS that suit our reproductive strategies. All peoples are better served by the production of SPECIALIZED COMMONS. And we can (finally) afford to produce them. And that is what we see across the world. WE NEED TO SPECIATE. WOLVES(conservatives) Packs, and SHEEP(liberals) Herd. Revolt, Separate, Prosper, Speciate.

  • Is Leftism a Disease? It’s Because We Are Speciating

    (dividing into species) —“Curt do you think that leftism is simply a mental illness or is there an actual reason why people adopt such an unreasonable belief system?”— I think it’s a pre-cognitive genetic (evolutionary) strategy that some people have evolved just as conservatism is a genetic (evolutionary) strategy that others have evolved. And I think the difference is caused by the female reproductive strategy that favors women and the lower classes, and male reproductive strategy that favors males and the middle/upper classes. And this is confirmed pretty simply by the reproductive attractiveness of conservatives and liberals. Conservatives tend to be more reproductively desirable, and have greater agency. These are genetic markers. My view is that we WERE speciating regionally by race when we discovered metalworking. My view is that we are wealthy enough to speciate by need for commons – and that’s what we are in the process of doing. And that the mistake is to think that our interests are better served by the production of COMPROMISE commons versus SPECIALIZED COMMONS that suit our reproductive strategies. All peoples are better served by the production of SPECIALIZED COMMONS. And we can (finally) afford to produce them. And that is what we see across the world. WE NEED TO SPECIATE. WOLVES(conservatives) Packs, and SHEEP(liberals) Herd. Revolt, Separate, Prosper, Speciate.

  • IS LEFTISM A DISEASE? WE ARE SPECIATING (dividing into species) —“Curt do you

    IS LEFTISM A DISEASE? WE ARE SPECIATING

    (dividing into species)

    —“Curt do you think that leftism is simply a mental illness or is there an actual reason why people adopt such an unreasonable belief system?”—

    I think it’s a pre-cognitive genetic (evolutionary) strategy that some people have evolved just as conservatism is a genetic (evolutionary) strategy that others have evolved.

    And I think the difference is caused by the female reproductive strategy that favors women and the lower classes, and male reproductive strategy that favors males and the middle/upper classes.

    And this is confirmed pretty simply by the reproductive attractiveness of conservatives and liberals. Conservatives tend to be more reproductively desirable, and have greater agency. These are genetic markers.

    My view is that we WERE speciating regionally by race when we discovered metalworking.

    My view is that we are wealthy enough to speciate by need for commons – and that’s what we are in the process of doing.

    And that the mistake is to think that our interests are better served by the production of COMPROMISE commons versus SPECIALIZED COMMONS that suit our reproductive strategies.

    All peoples are better served by the production of SPECIALIZED COMMONS. And we can (finally) afford to produce them.

    And that is what we see across the world.

    WE NEED TO SPECIATE.

    WOLVES(conservatives) Packs, and SHEEP(liberals) Herd.

    Revolt, Separate, Prosper, Speciate.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 18:13:00 UTC

  • Ok. is it me. Or is it true that UK women do more walks of shame than all the re

    Ok. is it me. Or is it true that UK women do more walks of shame than all the rest of the women in the world put together?

    (Asking for a friend.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 20:35:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. GENDER STRATEGIES That’s probably a good way

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    GENDER STRATEGIES
    That’s probably a good way of positioning our gender roles and our cognitive differences:

    -Female Work to Create The Good – Via Positiva (progressive)
    -Male Work to Eradicate The Bad – Via Negativa (conservative)

    While all market participants seek disequilibrium, all markets must produce equilibria in order to compete.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 14:40:21 UTC

  • GENDER STRATEGIES That’s probably a good way of positioning our gender roles and

    GENDER STRATEGIES

    That’s probably a good way of positioning our gender roles and our cognitive differences:

    -Female Work to Create The Good – Via Positiva (progressive)

    -Male Work to Eradicate The Bad – Via Negativa (conservative)

    While all market participants seek disequilibrium, all markets must produce equilibria in order to compete.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 10:40:00 UTC

  • Dangerous Minorities

    “The Democratic Majority Fallacy” |CAUSALITY| .01% -> 1% -> 20% -> EVERYONE ELSE. That is that historically it only takes 1-2% and no more than 3% of a (male) population to cause revolutionary destructive harm, just as it takes only 1-2% to create revolutionary productive good. The success of either end of the spectrum depends upon the state of development of the people, their degree of heterogeneity, the consequential degree of disparity, the consequential degree of competition, and the percentage of the populace that will practice alternative norms. Norms create a market for cooperation. Markets for production AFTER the market for norms (cooperation), and markets for commons after production, and markets for polities after commons. So no. It matters more if 1% of immigrants are hostile than it does if 1% of citizens are fully domesticated. Don’t let democratic reasoning fool you. The Pareto rule and the power laws ALWAYS rule – FROM EVERY DIRECTION. .5% of a hostile populace is enough. Abrahamism, particularly militant, fundamentalist, irreciprocal, equalitarian, anti-reason abrahamism, is the equivalent of a single cancer cell. It spreads rapidly and kills everything it touches from the inside out. Judaism was bad, christianity, worse, and islam the very worst. Islam(Judaism, Christianity) = Monopoly. Paganism = Markets. IT’S NOT COMPLICATED: MARKETS IN EVERYTHING TO EVOLVE, OR DEVOLUTION AND REGRESSION.