Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • I have a relative by marriage that is in the ‘crazy vegan chick’ cult, and she c

    I have a relative by marriage that is in the ‘crazy vegan chick’ cult, and she caused her infant brain damage by underfeeding him. That we substitute carbs for vegetables is a bad, sure. That we eat more meat than fish is a bad, sure. But ideological vegetarianism is little more than an attempt to exert control by minds that feel powerless, lacking agency, because the are borderline psychotic.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-04 09:31:00 UTC

  • white is statistically probable, the question is mental illness, family, drugs

    white is statistically probable, the question is mental illness, family, drugs.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-04 01:10:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981338084502630406

    Reply addressees: @pakiahkoi

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981334707626373120

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981334707626373120

  • Its actually isolated to children of liberals, with mental disorders, and most o

    Its actually isolated to children of liberals, with mental disorders, and most often include the use of anti-depressants. (really) In fact, I’m pretty sure the phenomenon is the result of single motherhood, suppression of physical action and dominance play, and school alienation.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 23:30:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981312949871628288

    Reply addressees: @pakiahkoi

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981311174376484865

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/981311174376484865

  • Solutions to Excess Males

    The reason the religions all favored monogamy is for the simple reason that while we require a lot of males to fend off other males, (armies) we do not need many domestic males. The fact that the rather obvious solution to this problem is to create armies that produce not only war but commons, and let ‘prostitution’ run wild, and meanwhile the upper 30% of males ‘spread it around’, while we redistribute gains to women who produce offspring – which is how we evolved – is somehow lost on us.

  • Solutions to Excess Males

    The reason the religions all favored monogamy is for the simple reason that while we require a lot of males to fend off other males, (armies) we do not need many domestic males. The fact that the rather obvious solution to this problem is to create armies that produce not only war but commons, and let ‘prostitution’ run wild, and meanwhile the upper 30% of males ‘spread it around’, while we redistribute gains to women who produce offspring – which is how we evolved – is somehow lost on us.

  • The Case for Compensatory Eugenics

    Well, politics like economics is counter intuitive, and in some sense wrong: humans flock to opportunities; humans defect when it’s in their interests, and the central problem is limiting the opportunities that they can flock and defect to, to those that are productive rather than parasitic – which preserves cooperation, at least among others than the underclasses that have no choice. And the only means of protecting against parasitism is competition. And the only means of mediating that competition is the common law of tort – meaning, the common law of non-parasitism. In most of history, we lacked control of birth, had high infant mortality, required an entire multi-generational family, if not a clan, to provide sufficient productivity to survive, and as such offspring, despite high mortality, were both a necessity and relatively uncontrollable consequence of sex between people for whom sex, food and other people were the most available forms of entertainment (And release from toil). Agrarians work far harder than pastoralists, who work harder than hunter gatherers. We work less hard but we also lack the benefits of socialization, (sex), and intergenerational protection. In other words, socialization and mindfulness decrease with rates of production. The very idea that competition creates harmony at the expense of the underclass is not novel. However, we are no longer producing only malthusian surpluses, we no longer require intergenerational families for insurance, we are no longer prisoners of accidental reproduction, and no longer face high child mortality. So, it’s actually pretty simple to pay the unproductive not to reproduce. And this continuously eliminates the unproductive, those who lack ability, and those who lack agency, from the population. Now, I do not know why anyone would object to this particular issue other than some sort of status signaling. but then, I don’t understand why status signaling, should not be limited to truthful expression any less than all other forms of truthful express, if in fact, the individual is economically supported by the community. The real reason for opposition is the female basalt intuition that sees the world as equal rather than a distribution, and as such fears she lacks the merit to reproduce, and that if she does reproduce this might expose her to conflict with other females, or subject her children to risk because of reproductive inequality. The other reason is the priesthood and intellectual salesman’s loss of market share. Since without an underclass the priesthood eventually disappears and turns into public intellectuals. And public intellectuals again lose market share, because the suppression of moral hazard, fictionalism, falsehood, deprives them of the ability to advocate for underclass parasitism. At present levels of human ability a distribution around 125, with 2/3 of the is probably the maximum, and probably desirable. I really don’t see any reason that number can’t move higher, but it can’t probably move without direct manipulation of the genome. That said, the benefits are LOGARITHMIC above 105. The future will be determined, like the present, by the size of our underclasses. The only competitive advantage any society possesses other than territorial resource, is SMALLER UNDERCLASSES.
    Apr 03, 2018 10:32am

  • The Case for Compensatory Eugenics

    Well, politics like economics is counter intuitive, and in some sense wrong: humans flock to opportunities; humans defect when it’s in their interests, and the central problem is limiting the opportunities that they can flock and defect to, to those that are productive rather than parasitic – which preserves cooperation, at least among others than the underclasses that have no choice. And the only means of protecting against parasitism is competition. And the only means of mediating that competition is the common law of tort – meaning, the common law of non-parasitism. In most of history, we lacked control of birth, had high infant mortality, required an entire multi-generational family, if not a clan, to provide sufficient productivity to survive, and as such offspring, despite high mortality, were both a necessity and relatively uncontrollable consequence of sex between people for whom sex, food and other people were the most available forms of entertainment (And release from toil). Agrarians work far harder than pastoralists, who work harder than hunter gatherers. We work less hard but we also lack the benefits of socialization, (sex), and intergenerational protection. In other words, socialization and mindfulness decrease with rates of production. The very idea that competition creates harmony at the expense of the underclass is not novel. However, we are no longer producing only malthusian surpluses, we no longer require intergenerational families for insurance, we are no longer prisoners of accidental reproduction, and no longer face high child mortality. So, it’s actually pretty simple to pay the unproductive not to reproduce. And this continuously eliminates the unproductive, those who lack ability, and those who lack agency, from the population. Now, I do not know why anyone would object to this particular issue other than some sort of status signaling. but then, I don’t understand why status signaling, should not be limited to truthful expression any less than all other forms of truthful express, if in fact, the individual is economically supported by the community. The real reason for opposition is the female basalt intuition that sees the world as equal rather than a distribution, and as such fears she lacks the merit to reproduce, and that if she does reproduce this might expose her to conflict with other females, or subject her children to risk because of reproductive inequality. The other reason is the priesthood and intellectual salesman’s loss of market share. Since without an underclass the priesthood eventually disappears and turns into public intellectuals. And public intellectuals again lose market share, because the suppression of moral hazard, fictionalism, falsehood, deprives them of the ability to advocate for underclass parasitism. At present levels of human ability a distribution around 125, with 2/3 of the is probably the maximum, and probably desirable. I really don’t see any reason that number can’t move higher, but it can’t probably move without direct manipulation of the genome. That said, the benefits are LOGARITHMIC above 105. The future will be determined, like the present, by the size of our underclasses. The only competitive advantage any society possesses other than territorial resource, is SMALLER UNDERCLASSES.
    Apr 03, 2018 10:32am

  • It’s better stated that women have costly opportunities but have little competit

    It’s better stated that women have costly opportunities but have little competition, and males have cheap opportunities and infinite competition; and that women are trying to capture better opportunities and men are simply trying to increase the number of opportunities. ( Ergo, larger testicals for polyamorous apes and smaller testicals for dominant apes. )

    There is nothing natural about*lifetime* monogamy, and everything natural about serial pairing off. The reason being *classes*. Pairing off provides Nash Optimums, just as much as markets produce Pareto Distributions.

    The problem with lifetime monogamy is that it evolved with and is dependent upon PROPERTY. For some people that property is part of the shared attraction (status). For others it is not so – they lack marginally sufficient productive ability to produce status signals, or to alter their sexual, social, economic, political, and military market values.

    Ergo we should see Power Couples at the top with lifetime marriages, affairs in the mature middle class, but preservation of lifetime monogamy, serial relationships in the lower classes.

    Which is what we see.

    One of the consequences of post industrial wealth (caused by the capture of energy) is that we can afford to pursue our preferences rather than have those preferences constrained by the previous conditions.

    This is what we see. We see vast exploration of preferences because we can afford to explore them (conduct research protgrams, and either succeed or fail) but at some point we have to measure the externalities produced, and that is what conservatives do…. we measure the intertemporal consequences. We are the long term ‘limiters’ that defend the gene pool – or fail to.

    The economic consequences of pairing off are substantial. The economic consequences of lifetime monogamy are substantial. The economic consequences of homogeneity and eugenic reproduction are substantial. In fact, they might be the most substantial. The way we restore these very-high-returns is simply *to stop funding alternatives thru redistribution* and let meritocracy reign again.

    That will produce families, and suppress underclass reproduction, and as a consequence produce greater wealth.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 16:55:00 UTC

  • by Ely Harman Women participating in economic production, (beyond a very low lev

    by Ely Harman

    Women participating in economic production, (beyond a very low level where their specializations are most helpful, or until marriage) are not participating in production but participating in consumption – especially the consumption of their genetic inheritance, in exchange for a single lifetime of careerism and sensation seeking. But all the status and memories they accumulate that way will die with them.

    I don’t see what was wrong with the post agrarian norms, where men were responsible for all of the war and politics and most of the economic production, while women were responsible for most of the reproduction and caretaking. That worked well enough for thousands of years.

    I think the main reason it’s been abandoned is that defection is individually rational, but collectively irrational.

    Nearly everyone would be better off, in their own estimation, if defection were effectively barred, though they may be better off still if they were able to defect while no one else could (fails existential possibility and reciprocity.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 15:43:00 UTC

  • —“Why do geniuses have a low EQ?”—

    THAT’S A MISTAKE. You’re attributing a skill to a similarity. In other words, very smart people understand each other just as well as ordinary people understand each other just as well as very stupid people understand each other. But just as you can’t understand very smart people, they can’t necessarily understand you. There are a lot more average people (66%) than there are exceptional people (the under 1%). This makes average people think they have a skill, rather than, that they are just surrounded by many people more like them. So emotions and others play a larger role in the life of ordinary people than they do very smart people. And it is harder to imagine why someone would rely on the opinion and intuitions of others when “they are so often wrong or foolish”. WHY? At 7 points (1/2 standard deviation) one can provide help to one another. At 15 points (1 standard deviation) the higher can provide management and leadership to the lower, but at 22 points (1–1/2 standard deviation) we have difficulting understanding each other, and at 30 points (2 standard deviations), we have a great difficulty understanding one another. We are just as different as types of ants. The difference is that our differences are cognitive and emotional not physical. EXAMPLE I had a very hard time understanding why ‘normies’ worried or had fears or concerns about trivial things, and how important trust of others was, and how much of their information and decisions they obtained from others rather than their own investigation, and moreover, what they found entertaining and interesting. I thought people were just plain mean and evil until I understood how … limited they were … and that they were just doing the best that they could. Once I understood it I was horrified, and depressed for months. )