Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • Anything we value, we value within limits. Anything we claim to value within any

    Anything we value, we value within limits. Anything we claim to value within any limits has proven to be demonstrably false by our demonstrated preference. All self reporting is false – that’s why psychology has tried to desperately reform, and why sociology is the laughing stock discipline: because it is purely pseudoscientific. As such we’re seeing cognitive science, economics, and law displace sociology just as the sciences displaced theology and philosophy.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-24 13:18:00 UTC

  • “Lets face it, underclass fathers dont stick around, and are not monogamous gene

    —“Lets face it, underclass fathers dont stick around, and are not monogamous generally, and not reliably employed so they require maintenance from the females of the species for lodging. The female is less violent and given access to state resources and benefits. The financial capacity of the community is dictated externally and distributed through underclass females so the selection criteria for mating is not determined by a mate’s economic value but by other criteria, education not one of them.”— anon

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-23 10:24:00 UTC

  • Been done. UNLV. By Hoppe illustrating (true) time preference difference between

    Been done. UNLV. By Hoppe illustrating (true) time preference difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Same argument 20yrs. Then…

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-22 13:58:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/888760170318266368

    Reply addressees: @AlanLevinovitz

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887389691292549120

    IN REPLY TO:

    @AlanLevinovitz

    Free speech thought experiment:

    A prof uses ugly students in her class to illustrate points abt physical unattractiveness. 1/

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887389691292549120

  • ASYMMETRY IN DUELS I took fencing in my 20’s got reasonably good despite the fac

    ASYMMETRY IN DUELS

    I took fencing in my 20’s got reasonably good despite the fact that I have the wrong build for it. And here is the thing. The average person with very little training can point-shoot successfully to the point where differences are marginal. This is why the aristocracy was overthrown. The difference between skilled swordsmen without armor is much greater. The difference between skilled warriors with swords and armor much greater. The difference between skilled fighters without weapons even greater. My opinion on these things is that we solve the difference with numbers as we always have (go to court) if we cannot find a reasonable compromise between our size and ability. And as such, as long as ‘court’ is one of the available options, dueling is simply rational.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-22 10:20:00 UTC

  • It’s not the same for women who have value in their reproduction and caretaking,

    It’s not the same for women who have value in their reproduction and caretaking, but for men, in the post-animal-labor era, we have no value whatsoever if we cannot compete and climb the dominance hierarchy and therefore attract a woman’s reproductive and caretaking interest.

    IQ and lack of Impulsivity are the result of neotonic selection of females by males, and selection of males with demonstrated ability to climb the dominance hierarchy by females.

    The problem is that females tend to select poorly without education and men select with less discrimination without regulation by other males.

    IQ is the single most important cause of everything good in society

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-22 06:57:00 UTC

  • THE THING MEN KILL FOR Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control studied ov

    THE THING MEN KILL FOR

    Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control studied over 10,000 female deaths in 18 states from 2003 to 2014 and found that 55 percent of them were related to disputes between intimate partners.

    More than 98 percent of the women who were killed were said to have died at the hands of men.

    A majority of them were under the age of 40, with 15 percent being pregnant or recently giving birth. Over 50 percent were shot to death.

    When it comes to male murder victims, an estimated 5 to 7 percent were killed by intimate partners, according to earlier reports.

    As for the overall murder count, black women were the most likely to be killed — followed by Native American women, Hispanics, whites, and Asians.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-21 21:43:00 UTC

  • Well, there are teachers and there are judges, there are scientists and there ar

    Well, there are teachers and there are judges, there are scientists and there are prosecutors. And my view is that it is the competition between the via positiva (peterson) and the via negativa (law) that leaves truth remaining. Because we do not know the truth, we can never know it. We can only know what is false and not yet false. As such, it is up to some to imagine and others to falsify. And for everyone in the market for knowledge to participate in the game. This is contrary to our intuitions because we want the cheap route to truth. But there is no other way to calculate it than by trial and error. And therefore no way to improve our pursuit of it other than to prohibit falsehoods. I don’t know any substantial thinkers that are accessible. It is up to followers and advocates to make the inaccessible accessible.

    In my opinion people will understand the constitution and what they will obtain in exchange for the cost of it. They will understand the value of truth even at the expense of the burden of it. But I doubt many people will understand the rest, or need to, other than the judges who use it to administer the law, and those legislators and lawyers who which to construct contracts of the commons that we currently call ‘legislation and regulation’.

    All along our mission has been the same: I am not a populist. I am providing the answer to Abraham, Augustine, Kant, Marx, Derrida and Rorty. Continuing the work of Aristotle, The Stoics, Roman Law, Machiavelli, Bacon, Smith, Hume, Darwin, Menger, Poincare, Weber, Pareto, Popper and Hayek.

    It is up to men of good conscience to be the distributors. I’m just the manufacturer.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-21 19:41:00 UTC

  • And in my view the PERSONAL relationship between Epicureanism and Stoicism is th

    And in my view the PERSONAL relationship between Epicureanism and Stoicism is the same as the INSTITUTIONAL relationship between religion and the military. Which is the same FAMILIAL relationship as the mother and the father. Competition keeps all parties honest through continuous compromise.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-21 15:33:00 UTC

  • TEACHING MASCULINITY (teaching)(humor) Me and two teachers. Talking. Telling me

    TEACHING MASCULINITY

    (teaching)(humor)

    Me and two teachers. Talking. Telling me about how they create a social contract for their classrooms, and paste it on the wall. And keep it there all year. And refer to it. “Are you taking care of the classroom?” “Are you taking care of each other?” Very socialist. Very ‘social harmony’. And brilliant in many ways.

    I walk over to the wall, and pretend i’m writing on it.

    “I am the teacher and you shall obey”. Generating the synchronous response that that is totalitarian.

    “The teacher is always right.” Synchronously generating the response “No, because even the teacher can learn.”

    “Might makes right”. Synchronously generating head-shaking.

    I tried. I really did. But they have this whole social contract thing down. And it’s a required skill for all teachers. lol

    We need “Rugby”, “King of the hill”, “Everything you got”, and “Finish him!!!” in the curriculum somewhere. ‘Cause this whole domestication thing is just too… It’s like brain damage for males. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-21 08:44:00 UTC

  • PETERSON’S INSIGHT IS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN BRAIN STRUCTURE AND CHEMISTRY, THE

    PETERSON’S INSIGHT IS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN BRAIN STRUCTURE AND CHEMISTRY, THE MONOMYTH, AND THE MYTHS

    Peterson does a number of less than perfect things. But (a) he is restoring stoicism (self authoring), (b) he is restoring myth as wisdom literature using the universal Monomyth>Archetypes>Plots>Virtues system, (c) he is illustrating that this set of teaching virtues by myth maps to personality traits, and how those traits map to brain chemistry and structures.

    WHAT DOES “GETTING IT RIGHT” MEAN TO PETERSON? CORRESPONDENCE AND COHERENCE.

    Peterson uses the term “got it right” when picking insights from different thinkers, and he lauds those with deep insight and literary talent in expression of them. But when he says “got it right” he is referring to an insight that mirrors both the findings cognitive science and the expression of that cognitive science in the

    Furthermore the authority on the subject is Hicks. And It’s flawless. Which I’m happy to argue with anyone. From a purely technical standpoint, the argumentative structure originates in France as moral literature. Is reformed by Kant into rationalism and then the German Continental line. Is reformed by Marx (boaz, freud, cantor, lenin, trotsky, mises, rothbard, strauss) into pseudoscience. And was reformed by the french again into moral literature(Derrida,Foucault), then into pseudo-rationalism (philosophy without truth, Rorty etc.). But the technique has been the same whether in judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, feminism, postmodernism: Literary, pseudo-scientific, pseudo-rational.

    But never deflationary truth: What we call “Science”.

    While we did develop Darwin, Menger, Weber, Durkheim, Pareto, Poincare, Hilbert, Maxwell, Einstein, Spencer, and Nietzsche, and Hayek. Despite mises, brouwer in math and bridgman in physics, and various thinkers in Law, the Operational(Intuitionistic) revolution failed except in the physical sciences. We failed to continue the enlightenment into the social sciences and prevent the counter-enlightenemnts of the abrahamists (fundamentalists, marxists, feminists, postmodernists).

    We were not able to solve social science without cognitive science, genetics, the failures of the postwar attempt at spreading democracy, the failure of communism, socialism, and the great society programs. And the failure of social democracy in those civilizations without accumulated genetic (higher Iq) and cultural (high trust) assets.

    TESTING PETERSON AND HICKS

    My analytic technique requires that we examine the method of argument – whether it is stated via deflation, conflation, or fictionalism, whether it’s scientifically true or not, and then I determine the changes that occur in the state of all existentially possible forms of capital, and whether those changes were voluntary or not.

    So I circumvent ‘meaning’ entirely. In other words, I perform an accounting audit of the arguments. And his arguments hold. Sorry. Rock solid.

    PETERSON’S ONE TROUBLING TOLERANCE

    I would like to correct Peterson on simply one point: that our deception by marxism and postmodernism it is precisely abrahamic use of supernatural literature as in Judaism, christianity, and islam) to deceive and manufacture impediments to knowledge by method of conflation, overloading, suggestion, and ‘fictionalism’ (confusing the real and the ideal and the supernatural). And providing a means of producing an addiction response through ritual and prayer. All off which appear to cause catastrophic harm to all civilizations that adopt abrahamic deception by suggestion and addiction.

    So, by tolerating abrahamic myths – any myths reliant upon fictionalism (conflation of supernatural, ideal, real; myth and history, wisdom and law) – Peterson is leaving open the door for abrahamic art of lying without which judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, and postmodernism cannot survive.

    So, while I have a technical criticism of his work, as far as I know he’s largely on the right track, and his criticisms are correct.

    CLOSING: THE HARSH REALITY OF WESTERN SUCCESS: TRUTH, MARKETS(Meritocracy) AND EUGENICS/

    As far as I know, Peterson is reliant upon a combination of cognitive science and literary science, to use parables to inform for success and diagnose for unhappiness. And this is the traditional role of pagan myth. THe fact that parables make use of ‘external observer’ effect and convey every dimension of reality as do all stories, is something that should be of obviously anyone with experience in therapeutic psychology, knowledge of the function of therapeutic hallucinogens, the art of suggestion, or artificial intelligence.

    Why? We are suggestible in when fire gazing and listening to stories because of the effect of the suspension of disbelief. By visualization via narrative analogy we can experience in the first, second or third person, that which we might feel pain in analyzing within ourselves.

    It was only with abrahamism that the method of teaching and curing was weaponized against the underclasses in order to rally them against the aristocracy. It had a not insignificant role in the destruction of ancient civilization, and it is having a current highly significant role in destroying the modern civilization.

    Why? Man was not oppressed. Man was and remains a beast that was first self domesticated ingroup, then forcibly domesticated by more domesticated outgroups by the combination of agrarian discipline, harsh winters, upward redistribution of reproduction, constraint on reproduction, delayed reproduction, aggressive exposing, sacrificing, hanging, burning,plague , illness, starvation, and war.

    And the distribution of prosperity today is determined by the success or failure at that reduction of the scale of the underclass that has not yet been sufficiently domesticated for autonomous, responsible, participation in modernity.

    Western man’s failing is the promotion of abrahamic underclass values via democracy and equality, rather than the origins and success of western civilization in truth, rule of law (non-discretionary rule. rule without rulers), Markets in everything – the consequence of which is incremental eugenics through upward redistribution of reproduction.

    And that is the difference between the honesty of the ancient world, and the ongoing deception of the modern.

    We are unequal. And our inequality is manageable, as long as we continue to shrink the size of the undomesticated lower classes until they are gone. After that we may find that our definition of lower classes may incrementally evolve. But at present it appears that there is a maximum human capacity around an average of 115-120, which means that we were close to optimum in the west before the industrial revolution. And that we have lost as much as a full standard deviation in average intelligence in less than 150 years.

    And if rates of immigration and reproduction continue, we will have reduced humanity to barbarism once again before the end of the century.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 10:14:00 UTC