Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • by Bill Joslin Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will

    by Bill Joslin

    Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will shift (their ethics). And conversely, clarifying one’s valuation will shift his aesthetics.

    I say this because as far as I can see, what is considered by many as the downside of reason – i.e. emotion, intuition, bias, – are really “fast-thinking” (stimulus response-reactive) processes which operate concurrent to “slow-thinking” (reason, logic, analysis) processes. And these influence each other (i.e. bias confirmation etc)…. but that also means the “fast-thinking processes” (our intuition) can be trained just like our reason.

    As slow-thinking clarifies and de-contextualizes common operations; fast thinking processes update in response. As you see the detriment of (anything really) – but, say emotional or moral reasoning – your preference for operational reasoning increases.

    And as one pursues operational reasoning, the fast-thinking process adapts – and we “feel” (disgust, tensions, suspicion whatever) when confronted with moral or emotional reasoning. Our biases and intuitions have “updated” – and the reverse is also true: our new biases and intuitions assist our ongoing reason.

    Since I’ve begun “training my mind” (really looking at, and attempting to, understand topics like philosophy etc) – I can no longer (no exaggeration) tolerate American TV and 99% of popular music.

    Specifically – as the time-horizon of my valuations increased, the foundation of those valuations changed, as those valuations changed, my tastes changed.

    -Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-01 22:23:00 UTC

  • by Bill Joslin Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will

    by Bill Joslin Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will shift (their ethics). And conversely, clarifying one’s valuation will shift his aesthetics. I say this because as far as I can see, what is considered by many as the downside of reason – i.e. emotion, intuition, bias, – are really “fast-thinking” (stimulus response-reactive) processes which operate concurrent to “slow-thinking” (reason, logic, analysis) processes. And these influence each other (i.e. bias confirmation etc)…. but that also means the “fast-thinking processes” (our intuition) can be trained just like our reason. As slow-thinking clarifies and de-contextualizes common operations; fast thinking processes update in response. As you see the detriment of (anything really) – but, say emotional or moral reasoning – your preference for operational reasoning increases. And as one pursues operational reasoning, the fast-thinking process adapts – and we “feel” (disgust, tensions, suspicion whatever) when confronted with moral or emotional reasoning. Our biases and intuitions have “updated” – and the reverse is also true: our new biases and intuitions assist our ongoing reason. Since I’ve begun “training my mind” (really looking at, and attempting to, understand topics like philosophy etc) – I can no longer (no exaggeration) tolerate American TV and 99% of popular music. Specifically – as the time-horizon of my valuations increased, the foundation of those valuations changed, as those valuations changed, my tastes changed. -Bill Joslin

  • by Bill Joslin Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will

    by Bill Joslin Change or influence a person’s aesthetic and their valuation will shift (their ethics). And conversely, clarifying one’s valuation will shift his aesthetics. I say this because as far as I can see, what is considered by many as the downside of reason – i.e. emotion, intuition, bias, – are really “fast-thinking” (stimulus response-reactive) processes which operate concurrent to “slow-thinking” (reason, logic, analysis) processes. And these influence each other (i.e. bias confirmation etc)…. but that also means the “fast-thinking processes” (our intuition) can be trained just like our reason. As slow-thinking clarifies and de-contextualizes common operations; fast thinking processes update in response. As you see the detriment of (anything really) – but, say emotional or moral reasoning – your preference for operational reasoning increases. And as one pursues operational reasoning, the fast-thinking process adapts – and we “feel” (disgust, tensions, suspicion whatever) when confronted with moral or emotional reasoning. Our biases and intuitions have “updated” – and the reverse is also true: our new biases and intuitions assist our ongoing reason. Since I’ve begun “training my mind” (really looking at, and attempting to, understand topics like philosophy etc) – I can no longer (no exaggeration) tolerate American TV and 99% of popular music. Specifically – as the time-horizon of my valuations increased, the foundation of those valuations changed, as those valuations changed, my tastes changed. -Bill Joslin

  • My answer to What would IQ obsessed Quorans do if tomorrow it was confirmed that

    My answer to What would IQ obsessed Quorans do if tomorrow it was confirmed that IQ scores and testing were a grand… https://www.quora.com/What-would-IQ-obsessed-Quorans-do-if-tomorrow-it-was-confirmed-that-IQ-scores-and-testing-were-a-grand-hoax/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-01 19:53:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/959152752655061000

  • 2 – … (c) the kind of people who respond to polls have time to do so which is

    2 – … (c) the kind of people who respond to polls have time to do so which is a charitable way of saying people who have agency don’t waste their time. …

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-01 13:33:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/959056994983448578

    Reply addressees: @Adsthoughts @pelosimedia @sapinker @chronicle

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/958966002452119552

    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/958966002452119552

  • JUST USE THE WORD: INFANTILIZATION I really don’t understand why we don’t just s

    JUST USE THE WORD: INFANTILIZATION

    I really don’t understand why we don’t just state the obvious, that the female mind of reproductive necessity biases heavily to that which she can control: infatilism. And this is why women take such great fascination with babies, and prefer their children are born with properties that make them pliable and their ‘friends’ rather successful competitors. Because women must be strong and possess agency to raise those who are strong and with agency. And women who are weak an lack agency wish children who they can control despite their weakness and agency.

    Abrahamism, Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism: they advocate infantilism.

    Because their followers have infantile minds.

    And I suspect that like everything else, that’s because in 80% of cases they have infantile brains.

    And that during the great transformation, buddha came close, but only Epicurious, Zeno and Aristotle got it right.

    Meaning, living in correspondence with reality without submitting to it, by making the mind as strong as the body, ether by Achilles/Alexander(aristocracy), Zeno/Aurelius (Middle class), or Epicurious (Working Class), but never by abandoning reality to a fictionalism (underclass).

    These are adulthoods. Agency. Whether for the powerful, the influential (middle class), or the valuable (Working Class).

    And just as we can train people in reading, writing, math, accounting, and physics – we can train people in stoicism, epicureanism, and heroism.

    But that is counter to the infantile: because all of them require agency, and the infantile is still an undomesticated animal, neither genetically able, nor sufficiently trained, to be included in that label of sentience and agency we call ‘Human’.

    The infantile, is equal to, the animal.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-01 13:25:00 UTC

  • Just Use The Word: Infantilization

    I really don’t understand why we don’t just state the obvious, that the female mind of reproductive necessity biases heavily to that which she can control: infatilism. And this is why women take such great fascination with babies, and prefer their children are born with properties that make them pliable and their ‘friends’ rather successful competitors. Because women must be strong and possess agency to raise those who are strong and with agency. And women who are weak an lack agency wish children who they can control despite their weakness and agency. Abrahamism, Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism: they advocate infantilism. Because their followers have infantile minds. And I suspect that like everything else, that’s because in 80% of cases they have infantile brains. And that during the great transformation, buddha came close, but only Epicurious, Zeno and Aristotle got it right. Meaning, living in correspondence with reality without submitting to it, by making the mind as strong as the body, ether by Achilles/Alexander(aristocracy), Zeno/Aurelius (Middle class), or Epicurious (Working Class), but never by abandoning reality to a fictionalism (underclass). These are adulthoods. Agency. Whether for the powerful, the influential (middle class), or the valuable (Working Class). And just as we can train people in reading, writing, math, accounting, and physics – we can train people in stoicism, epicureanism, and heroism. But that is counter to the infantile: because all of them require agency, and the infantile is still an undomesticated animal, neither genetically able, nor sufficiently trained, to be included in that label of sentience and agency we call ‘Human’. The infantile, is equal to, the animal.

  • Just Use The Word: Infantilization

    I really don’t understand why we don’t just state the obvious, that the female mind of reproductive necessity biases heavily to that which she can control: infatilism. And this is why women take such great fascination with babies, and prefer their children are born with properties that make them pliable and their ‘friends’ rather successful competitors. Because women must be strong and possess agency to raise those who are strong and with agency. And women who are weak an lack agency wish children who they can control despite their weakness and agency. Abrahamism, Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism: they advocate infantilism. Because their followers have infantile minds. And I suspect that like everything else, that’s because in 80% of cases they have infantile brains. And that during the great transformation, buddha came close, but only Epicurious, Zeno and Aristotle got it right. Meaning, living in correspondence with reality without submitting to it, by making the mind as strong as the body, ether by Achilles/Alexander(aristocracy), Zeno/Aurelius (Middle class), or Epicurious (Working Class), but never by abandoning reality to a fictionalism (underclass). These are adulthoods. Agency. Whether for the powerful, the influential (middle class), or the valuable (Working Class). And just as we can train people in reading, writing, math, accounting, and physics – we can train people in stoicism, epicureanism, and heroism. But that is counter to the infantile: because all of them require agency, and the infantile is still an undomesticated animal, neither genetically able, nor sufficiently trained, to be included in that label of sentience and agency we call ‘Human’. The infantile, is equal to, the animal.

  • What Would Iq Obsessed Quorans Do If Tomorrow It Was Confirmed That Iq Scores And Testing Were A Grand Hoax?

    It can’t and won’t happen since we have overwhelming data, now confirmed by genetics (last year), and cognitive science, as well as empirical evidence in every field of study and in every country on earth, and in every race, subrace, tribe, class, family, and gender, that IQ is one of the “Factor” personality traits, that along with conscientiousness is the single greatest determinant of all human behavior and consequence, because it increases the ability to identify increasingly complex patters of constant relations at the same biological cost.

    Furthermore we know the structural and developmental differences between the male and female brains. So we know the difference in behavior desipte our similar factors is determined by biases in dimensions within those factors.

    Furthermore, we know that the factors and dimensions are produced by the same number of endocrine reactions (reward systems). And that genetic, gender, and developmental differences produce human variation in all personality traits.

    Furthermore we know that the primary means of improving human personality traits (including intelligence) is through pedomorphic evolution (mating for more youthful features).

    And that pedomorphic evolution merely delays the rate and intensity of sexual maturity. Giving time and energy for intellectual development.

    Furthermore we know that the primary variations in personality are due to the combination of rate of maturity, the different behaviors learned that accompany rates of maturity, and the gender bias of those traits from the more solipsistic and feminine, to the more autistic and male.

    Humans are not manufactured industrially but grown on an individual basis. But the rules for all humans as for all mammals, and for all life are the same.

    There are very few rules that govern our macro development.

    And endocrine variations in genes, utero, and early development determine our differences.

    And intelligence is what we gain from losing those ‘masculine’ features that in fact represent nothing more than depth of maturity.

    Yet to do so we must prevent the early maturity of the female mind, and its irrationality that is necessary for the irrational obsession with infants necessary for a very costly being that must be raised for many years prior to independence.

    https://www.quora.com/What-would-IQ-obsessed-Quorans-do-if-tomorrow-it-was-confirmed-that-IQ-scores-and-testing-were-a-grand-hoax

  • What Would Iq Obsessed Quorans Do If Tomorrow It Was Confirmed That Iq Scores And Testing Were A Grand Hoax?

    It can’t and won’t happen since we have overwhelming data, now confirmed by genetics (last year), and cognitive science, as well as empirical evidence in every field of study and in every country on earth, and in every race, subrace, tribe, class, family, and gender, that IQ is one of the “Factor” personality traits, that along with conscientiousness is the single greatest determinant of all human behavior and consequence, because it increases the ability to identify increasingly complex patters of constant relations at the same biological cost.

    Furthermore we know the structural and developmental differences between the male and female brains. So we know the difference in behavior desipte our similar factors is determined by biases in dimensions within those factors.

    Furthermore, we know that the factors and dimensions are produced by the same number of endocrine reactions (reward systems). And that genetic, gender, and developmental differences produce human variation in all personality traits.

    Furthermore we know that the primary means of improving human personality traits (including intelligence) is through pedomorphic evolution (mating for more youthful features).

    And that pedomorphic evolution merely delays the rate and intensity of sexual maturity. Giving time and energy for intellectual development.

    Furthermore we know that the primary variations in personality are due to the combination of rate of maturity, the different behaviors learned that accompany rates of maturity, and the gender bias of those traits from the more solipsistic and feminine, to the more autistic and male.

    Humans are not manufactured industrially but grown on an individual basis. But the rules for all humans as for all mammals, and for all life are the same.

    There are very few rules that govern our macro development.

    And endocrine variations in genes, utero, and early development determine our differences.

    And intelligence is what we gain from losing those ‘masculine’ features that in fact represent nothing more than depth of maturity.

    Yet to do so we must prevent the early maturity of the female mind, and its irrationality that is necessary for the irrational obsession with infants necessary for a very costly being that must be raised for many years prior to independence.

    https://www.quora.com/What-would-IQ-obsessed-Quorans-do-if-tomorrow-it-was-confirmed-that-IQ-scores-and-testing-were-a-grand-hoax