Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • Via-Negativa in Everything: Of all the genetic markers we have identified in the

    Via-Negativa in Everything: Of all the genetic markers we have identified in the production of intelligence, nearly all of them are inhibitory.The problems we face are eliminating error: ignorance, error, bias, suggestion and deceit. This is the intellectual shift I’m advancing..

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 13:14:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975722057458647040

  • “WE CAN’T MEASURE IQ ABOVE…”— While a grain of truth, that’s not quite right

    —“WE CAN’T MEASURE IQ ABOVE…”—

    While a grain of truth, that’s not quite right.

    We can use 160 as a test measure, or 160 on distribution (S.D.). We tend to conflate them.

    Like testing any of the arts, testing intelligence can be accomplished through triangulation to produce ordinality whenever cardinality fails.

    I know that Chomsky is smarter than I am because I am very conscious of his thought process when speaking and I cannot do that without side-tracking. (And believe me I can take you through a very long train of thought that will devastate even the smartest of people. But he is much better at it.)

    I know some people can tolerate reading certain categories of text more so than I (anything that demands empathy is off my radar. I get exhausted. Just the data please. ).

    I know that some people have superior ability to maintain categorical states (math and chess for example). I get … something between bored and tired. The only way I can play chess is to abstractly control the board, and leave traps for my opponent. I am not a cunning player.

    I have never met anyone anywhere close to me in certain other abilities.

    In other words, it is just increasingly expensive to test as we pass 140/150 because all gains after that appear to diverge from g (where all abilities scale in parallel) into where individual abilities scale and others don’t.

    So above 140/150 we no longer get meaningful measures because g is a decreasingly meaningful aggregate. That does not mean that we cannot test the various abilities that we coalesce into g.

    Chris Langan has a very IQ (g) but he makes a profound mistake in equating symmetry with intention. Einstein did not have that impressive an IQ but was extremely diligent and made few mistakes other than ‘the constant’.

    Chomsky made a brilliant contribution by applying Turing’s insights to language. But his errors outside of his field are the product of having confidence in his institutions rather than analyzing the demonstrated behavior of humans throughout history.

    Hayek was terribly smart and covered vast intellectual terrain before he understood that then only answer empirical to the question of politics was the common law of tort – and not economics, or politics. Popper and Mises had insights but were half wrong because they could not escape the framing of their cultures. Marx could work like few other men in history, but he was wrong on first principles and after reading Menger died knowing he was wrong, and his life wasted – he just couldn’t’ say so since Engels was supporting him.

    This is a very common problem because it is the harmonic (market consequence) between the various cognitive abilities we possess that produces a ‘market for correspondence’ or what is more easily envisioned as “an accurate model of the world and our projections of that model into models outside our direct experience.”

    In other words, demonstrated intelligence is the result of a competing market of mental agencies any of which can go wrong, and any of which can excel.

    Just like everything else in evolution.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 12:28:00 UTC

  • —“We Can’t Measure IQ Above…”—

    —“WE CAN’T MEASURE IQ ABOVE…”— While a grain of truth, that’s not quite right. We can use 160 as a test measure, or 160 on distribution (S.D.). We tend to conflate them. Like testing any of the arts, testing intelligence can be accomplished through triangulation to produce ordinality whenever cardinality fails. I know that Chomsky is smarter than I am because I am very conscious of his thought process when speaking and I cannot do that without side-tracking. (And believe me I can take you through a very long train of thought that will devastate even the smartest of people. But he is much better at it.) I know some people can tolerate reading certain categories of text more so than I (anything that demands empathy is off my radar. I get exhausted. Just the data please. ). I know that some people have superior ability to maintain categorical states (math and chess for example). I get … something between bored and tired. The only way I can play chess is to abstractly control the board, and leave traps for my opponent. I am not a cunning player. I have never met anyone anywhere close to me in certain other abilities. In other words, it is just increasingly expensive to test as we pass 140/150 because all gains after that appear to diverge from g (where all abilities scale in parallel) into where individual abilities scale and others don’t. So above 140/150 we no longer get meaningful measures because g is a decreasingly meaningful aggregate. That does not mean that we cannot test the various abilities that we coalesce into g. Chris Langan has a very IQ (g) but he makes a profound mistake in equating symmetry with intention. Einstein did not have that impressive an IQ but was extremely diligent and made few mistakes other than ‘the constant’. Chomsky made a brilliant contribution by applying Turing’s insights to language. But his errors outside of his field are the product of having confidence in his institutions rather than analyzing the demonstrated behavior of humans throughout history. Hayek was terribly smart and covered vast intellectual terrain before he understood that then only answer empirical to the question of politics was the common law of tort – and not economics, or politics. Popper and Mises had insights but were half wrong because they could not escape the framing of their cultures. Marx could work like few other men in history, but he was wrong on first principles and after reading Menger died knowing he was wrong, and his life wasted – he just couldn’t’ say so since Engels was supporting him. This is a very common problem because it is the harmonic (market consequence) between the various cognitive abilities we possess that produces a ‘market for correspondence’ or what is more easily envisioned as “an accurate model of the world and our projections of that model into models outside our direct experience.” In other words, demonstrated intelligence is the result of a competing market of mental agencies any of which can go wrong, and any of which can excel. Just like everything else in evolution. Cheers

  • —“We Can’t Measure IQ Above…”—

    —“WE CAN’T MEASURE IQ ABOVE…”— While a grain of truth, that’s not quite right. We can use 160 as a test measure, or 160 on distribution (S.D.). We tend to conflate them. Like testing any of the arts, testing intelligence can be accomplished through triangulation to produce ordinality whenever cardinality fails. I know that Chomsky is smarter than I am because I am very conscious of his thought process when speaking and I cannot do that without side-tracking. (And believe me I can take you through a very long train of thought that will devastate even the smartest of people. But he is much better at it.) I know some people can tolerate reading certain categories of text more so than I (anything that demands empathy is off my radar. I get exhausted. Just the data please. ). I know that some people have superior ability to maintain categorical states (math and chess for example). I get … something between bored and tired. The only way I can play chess is to abstractly control the board, and leave traps for my opponent. I am not a cunning player. I have never met anyone anywhere close to me in certain other abilities. In other words, it is just increasingly expensive to test as we pass 140/150 because all gains after that appear to diverge from g (where all abilities scale in parallel) into where individual abilities scale and others don’t. So above 140/150 we no longer get meaningful measures because g is a decreasingly meaningful aggregate. That does not mean that we cannot test the various abilities that we coalesce into g. Chris Langan has a very IQ (g) but he makes a profound mistake in equating symmetry with intention. Einstein did not have that impressive an IQ but was extremely diligent and made few mistakes other than ‘the constant’. Chomsky made a brilliant contribution by applying Turing’s insights to language. But his errors outside of his field are the product of having confidence in his institutions rather than analyzing the demonstrated behavior of humans throughout history. Hayek was terribly smart and covered vast intellectual terrain before he understood that then only answer empirical to the question of politics was the common law of tort – and not economics, or politics. Popper and Mises had insights but were half wrong because they could not escape the framing of their cultures. Marx could work like few other men in history, but he was wrong on first principles and after reading Menger died knowing he was wrong, and his life wasted – he just couldn’t’ say so since Engels was supporting him. This is a very common problem because it is the harmonic (market consequence) between the various cognitive abilities we possess that produces a ‘market for correspondence’ or what is more easily envisioned as “an accurate model of the world and our projections of that model into models outside our direct experience.” In other words, demonstrated intelligence is the result of a competing market of mental agencies any of which can go wrong, and any of which can excel. Just like everything else in evolution. Cheers

  • ARE SMART PEOPLE SO QUIET”– **I’ll give you a much better answer.** To begin wi

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-some-very-smart-people-so-quiet/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=b38e0456&srid=u4Qv–“WHY ARE SMART PEOPLE SO QUIET”–

    **I’ll give you a much better answer.**

    To begin with we do not rely on others for our understanding, only information that we do not yet know. That said, here is why we are quiet:

    1) You learn fairly quickly that you cannot help people to come to a conclusion faster than they are able to comfortably do so with confidence.

    2) You learn fairly quickly that giving them the answer early will lead to resisting it – fighting it, or denying it, because they didn’t ‘own it’ by going through the journey.

    3) You learn fairly quickly that people grow suspicious of you and even avoid or exclude you if you make them feel inferior, inadequate, or unable to gain pleasure from working themselves or with others to come to a shared conclusion on their own.

    4) You learn fairly quickly that people will overload you with decisions that are uninteresting – and you prefer to work on things you find interesting yourself.

    5) You learn that the way to help people using your intelligence is to (a) let them come to you, (b) provide them with the next step in their reasoning (assist them on their journey don’t force them into yours), (c) in groups, prevent them from doing wrong or harm, and suggest paths of opportunity rather than give them the answer.

    6) You only aggressively dominate the conversation (because we can generally do so with trivial ease) to prevent an immoral, unethical, criminal, or otherwise terribly harmful wrong.

    In other words, you learn to speak with other humans like parents talk to children.

    If you do this, people will generally like you very much.

    We all want leaders. We just want leaders who we choose, and we choose them because they help us on our journey just as much as they take us with them on theirs.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, UkraineUpdated Mar 19, 2018, 11:59 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 11:59:00 UTC

  • –“Why Are Smart People So Quiet”–

    –“WHY ARE SMART PEOPLE SO QUIET”– **I’ll give you a much better answer.** To begin with we do not rely on others for our understanding, only information that we do not yet know. That said, here is why we are quiet: 1) You learn fairly quickly that you cannot help people to come to a conclusion faster than they are able to comfortably do so with confidence. 2) You learn fairly quickly that giving them the answer early will lead to resisting it – fighting it, or denying it, because they didn’t ‘own it’ by going through the journey. 3) You learn fairly quickly that people grow suspicious of you and even avoid or exclude you if you make them feel inferior, inadequate, or unable to gain pleasure from working themselves or with others to come to a shared conclusion on their own. 4) You learn fairly quickly that people will overload you with decisions that are uninteresting – and you prefer to work on things you find interesting yourself. 5) You learn that the way to help people using your intelligence is to (a) let them come to you, (b) provide them with the next step in their reasoning (assist them on their journey don’t force them into yours), (c) in groups, prevent them from doing wrong or harm, and suggest paths of opportunity rather than give them the answer. 6) You only aggressively dominate the conversation (because we can generally do so with trivial ease) to prevent an immoral, unethical, criminal, or otherwise terribly harmful wrong. In other words, you learn to speak with other humans like parents talk to children. If you do this, people will generally like you very much. We all want leaders. We just want leaders who we choose, and we choose them because they help us on our journey just as much as they take us with them on theirs. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • –“Why Are Smart People So Quiet”–

    –“WHY ARE SMART PEOPLE SO QUIET”– **I’ll give you a much better answer.** To begin with we do not rely on others for our understanding, only information that we do not yet know. That said, here is why we are quiet: 1) You learn fairly quickly that you cannot help people to come to a conclusion faster than they are able to comfortably do so with confidence. 2) You learn fairly quickly that giving them the answer early will lead to resisting it – fighting it, or denying it, because they didn’t ‘own it’ by going through the journey. 3) You learn fairly quickly that people grow suspicious of you and even avoid or exclude you if you make them feel inferior, inadequate, or unable to gain pleasure from working themselves or with others to come to a shared conclusion on their own. 4) You learn fairly quickly that people will overload you with decisions that are uninteresting – and you prefer to work on things you find interesting yourself. 5) You learn that the way to help people using your intelligence is to (a) let them come to you, (b) provide them with the next step in their reasoning (assist them on their journey don’t force them into yours), (c) in groups, prevent them from doing wrong or harm, and suggest paths of opportunity rather than give them the answer. 6) You only aggressively dominate the conversation (because we can generally do so with trivial ease) to prevent an immoral, unethical, criminal, or otherwise terribly harmful wrong. In other words, you learn to speak with other humans like parents talk to children. If you do this, people will generally like you very much. We all want leaders. We just want leaders who we choose, and we choose them because they help us on our journey just as much as they take us with them on theirs. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • “An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”— Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it

    —“An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”—

    Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it can be calculated.

    I think (as Chomsky and others have suggested) that (and I have some experience testing it) that our definition of intelligence (model + forecast) today would differ from that definition of intelligence just as our two-handed nervous system differs from the eight limbs of an octopus.

    In that the models we are capable of perceiving with current intelligence are limited by our capacity to act, and that at some point, the models we rely upon are not longer limited by our capacity to act, any more than our ability to measure is limited any longer by the limits of our senses, or our ability to calculate limited by our reason independent of numbers.

    So we can model today what we cannot percieve with our senses directly without use of ability to gather information and reduce it to an analogy to our senses. But we can in some senses model the universe, economies and subatomic interactions.

    This same ability to construct models should not have any limit that I can see other than our ability to continuously excite enough neurons to create such a model. Ergo, it should be possible. The issue is reducing cost of neural transmission and preserving the number of neurons available for learning. As far as I know that’s not difficult since we know that white matter alone does much of it.

    I just don’t’ know if we’re ‘human’ any longer at that point in other than morphology.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 10:49:00 UTC

  • “An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”— Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it

    —“An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”— Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it can be calculated. I think (as Chomsky and others have suggested) that (and I have some experience testing it) that our definition of intelligence (model + forecast) today would differ from that definition of intelligence just as our two-handed nervous system differs from the eight limbs of an octopus. In that the models we are capable of perceiving with current intelligence are limited by our capacity to act, and that at some point, the models we rely upon are not longer limited by our capacity to act, any more than our ability to measure is limited any longer by the limits of our senses, or our ability to calculate limited by our reason independent of numbers. So we can model today what we cannot percieve with our senses directly without use of ability to gather information and reduce it to an analogy to our senses. But we can in some senses model the universe, economies and subatomic interactions. This same ability to construct models should not have any limit that I can see other than our ability to continuously excite enough neurons to create such a model. Ergo, it should be possible. The issue is reducing cost of neural transmission and preserving the number of neurons available for learning. As far as I know that’s not difficult since we know that white matter alone does much of it. I just don’t’ know if we’re ‘human’ any longer at that point in other than morphology.

  • “An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”— Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it

    —“An IQ of 16000 seems absurd”— Well the way it’s calculated is the only way it can be calculated. I think (as Chomsky and others have suggested) that (and I have some experience testing it) that our definition of intelligence (model + forecast) today would differ from that definition of intelligence just as our two-handed nervous system differs from the eight limbs of an octopus. In that the models we are capable of perceiving with current intelligence are limited by our capacity to act, and that at some point, the models we rely upon are not longer limited by our capacity to act, any more than our ability to measure is limited any longer by the limits of our senses, or our ability to calculate limited by our reason independent of numbers. So we can model today what we cannot percieve with our senses directly without use of ability to gather information and reduce it to an analogy to our senses. But we can in some senses model the universe, economies and subatomic interactions. This same ability to construct models should not have any limit that I can see other than our ability to continuously excite enough neurons to create such a model. Ergo, it should be possible. The issue is reducing cost of neural transmission and preserving the number of neurons available for learning. As far as I know that’s not difficult since we know that white matter alone does much of it. I just don’t’ know if we’re ‘human’ any longer at that point in other than morphology.