Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • BAD BEHAVIOR: IS IT RACE, CLASS, CULTURE, SINGLE MOTHERHOOD, WHAT? (good stuff)

    BAD BEHAVIOR: IS IT RACE, CLASS, CULTURE, SINGLE MOTHERHOOD, WHAT?

    (good stuff)

    —“Question: What’s the causal link between single parenthood and child dysfunction/criminality? Certainly in America the criminality has risen when single parenthood did also. Now, the right generally seems to argue it’s because of the necessity of the family, the left blames it on racism, and the HBD/Biodiversity folk attributes it to purely genetics. Nobody can give a straight answer and they all contradict each other. What’s your neutral take on it? It’s driving me a little mad”— A Friend

    “All happy families are the same. All unhappy families are different. All happy people are the same. All unhappy people are different. All domesticatable animals are the same. All undomesticatable animals are different.”

    A lot of things ‘have to go right’ to make a good person, and any of tem that go wrong makes a less good person. There are a LOT OF THINGS that can go wrong.

    The more FREEDOM (social agency) you have in a society, the more dependence upon your abilities (genes), training (socialization and norms), and education (marketable skills).

    So what you see in the world is that IQ very much reflects what you can do in a society. Because the society must accommodate the majority. So the dumber the majority the less freedom. The smarter the majority the more freedom. This is why westerners work by science, technology, rule of law and the one principle of the golden/silver rule, and why islamists for example simply are trained by the use of religion and repetition like small children or even domesticated animals. that difference is one standard deviation (one intellectual-species deviation) in lower average intelligence. The problem is that unlike the Africans who are more pro-social than we are (for obvious reasons – they kill each other pretty often otherwise), the islamic religion advocates aggression.

    Under-domestication of underclasses, poor quality personality (iq/industriousness), low investment parenting, lack of socialization that provides what low investment parenting does not (getting your ass kicked if you’re an asshole) and the difference in the size of the underclasses between the races so that we actually DO discriminate against one another (correctly) unless we act and dress Conformatively.

    So the answer to what goes wrong with single motherhood? ALL OF THE ABOVE. A single mother, working, living alone, with low IQ cannot distribute the tasks of feeding, *training*, educating, a child, unless his genetics and peers are so favorable that he can be insulated from competition and hardship. In other words, ALL CHILDREN ARE INFANTILIZED by our current educational system because of de-socialization of the right kind (survival) and socialization of the wrong kind (the industrial school system that lacks social competition). And that’s just the beginning of the problem.

    The single-parent problem is only a problem because we have just enough money to live in our own apartments with a mother and child without (a) depending upon one another for survival and therefore socializing properly, or (b) providing in-family socialization and discipline, and (c) providing sufficient social skills and productive skills to find work in a modern economy.

    Markets in everything matter. The market for socialization in a distribution of ages is more important than accelerating the rate of reading mathematics and sciences. There is no evidence that it makes any difference whatsoever.

    Sports, socialization, big extended families for everyone below the professional +120 class.

    I have run out of interest in this topic for the moment but it warrants about double this length.

    We have to abandon ‘all kids are equal’ and ‘all people are equal’ and realize that we have mixes of good and bad traits and saturation in the markets for survival familial/intergenerational, social/inter-class+gender, and economic/inter-skill requires training. And to make a person achieve that in modernity requires training in a particular skill we have abandoned: mindfulness.

    My problem with abrahamic religion is that it seeks to produce mindfulness through deceit. My preference for stoicism, even over buddhism, is that it is both literary and scientific, and requires no falsehood even if myths, literature, and histories are all exaggerations for the purpose of illustrating what might otherwise be invisible in a sea of tedious normalcy.

    The difference is that it is CHEAP to lie (abrahamic religion) and perform nonsense rituals, and it is EXPENSIVE to tell the truth (stoic virtue disciplines).

    And it is possible that some percentage of people (although I doubt it) are below the intelligence spectrum for Stoicism, and that we must achieve through repetitive imitative training (by doing) what stoicism asks us to achieve by repetitive discipline (by doing) ourselves.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-07 12:03:00 UTC

  • DIFFERENCES IN MORAL INTUITION ARE VERY SIMPLE The difference between alphas (th

    DIFFERENCES IN MORAL INTUITION ARE VERY SIMPLE

    The difference between alphas (the tribe), and betas (myself and my offspring). Or the difference between K-selection (us) and r-selection (you). The fact that the left strategy is r-dysgenic, and the right K-eugenic is not a mystery. The fact that the primary difference between races, nations, and tribes, is their time under manorialism (feudal farming) and the success at reducing the size of the underclass such that the median intelligence rises above what we consider 100 today. Your ancestors might have been peasants. And that might be why you hold your ‘feelings’. But many of ours have been farmers, and craftsmen, and scholars or soldiers or both. And that is what separates the K-alpha-eugenic classes from the r-beta-dysgenic classes. Its not complicated. We don’t choose moral codes. We are born with them.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 12:32:00 UTC

  • THAT THING WE CALL CONSCIOUSNESS (important) The conscious mind (system 2: direc

    THAT THING WE CALL CONSCIOUSNESS

    (important)

    The conscious mind (system 2: directed search[reasoning] ) rides on the elephant of intuition (system 1: intuitionistic search), which is informed by our desire to acquire, inventory, and defend, for which we obtain rewards and punishments (emotions), which are biased by our reproductive strategy(gender distributions), which is biased by our genes(variations we call personality).

    Consciousness is the consequence of layers of very short term memory interacting with the results produced by continuous iterative searches of longer term memory, producing a continuous short term memory of change in state on the order of half of a second (sampling rate) to three seconds (persistence[echo]).

    At least in theory, it appears that increases in brain volume (and cortical layers) could continue to expand but we are limited by the ability of females to carry and birth us while still preserving the ability to run, and limited by the rate of information transfer. Ergo we could evolve far larger brains at the cost of higher energy consumption (brains are expensive organs).

    While social populations distribute SENSORY labor, instead of getting larger and larger brains evolution *suggests* that we developed language and thereby distributed COGNITIVE labor allowing for smaller less expensive brains.

    Genders specialize in certain biases, and it is through cooperation and non cooperation (that is far more valuable in productivity than non-cooperation) we ‘calculate’ the evolutionary (survival) value of our biased perceptions and ‘program’ one another to perform for (mostly) common good.

    So we divide perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy, in a network which we call ‘social order’ of different scales: friends, families, clans, tribes, nations.

    And we develop formal institutions and methods of recording and measurement to assist us.

    But in the end, we act on behalf of our genes. I often reduce us to acquisition-machines. All the ’emotions’ and ‘phenomenon’ are just consequences (byproducts) of the necessity to train a memory to acquire using a limited number of chemical rewards and punishments, in a network of individuals using similar information.

    It’s actually all rather simple. The only complicated bit is that amazing thing we call the cortex, and its seven layers of cells that combine stimuli into categories which due to the necessity of planning actions, and then necessity of serializing the extraordinary volume of information we process into a sequence of symbols for the purpose of communication.

    So between parallelization (searching) on one hand, and planning, and having to communicate on the other hand we produce ‘order’ from a continuous stream of memory of changes in state, into continuous streams of plans and language.

    It’s quite elegant really.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 05:42:00 UTC

  • “Women as a group are systemically discriminated against – both openly and subco

    —“Women as a group are systemically discriminated against – both openly and subconsciously – and their lives are poorer for it.”—

    Women display unconscious bias. Men display unconscious bias. Women display personality trait biases. Mental illness biases. Aesthetic biases. Temporal value biases. Friendship biases. Lower tolerance for diversity in friends. Lower loyalty in business. higher likelihood of being an undesirable manager. More likely to undermine other women in business. As likely as men in sociopathy. Far higher rates of mental illness. Women disapprove of far more than men disapprove of in every walk of life. Women display an array of cognitive biases, and we might venture that the entire world is worse for it. Women display voting biases consistently differently from men. Are not men systematically discriminated against? In what walks of life are men not systematically discriminated against by women? How long does it take to trust someone? How long for a man to trust a man, a man to trust a woman, a woman to trust a woman, and a woman to trust a man? Why are those rates different?

    How about this: we worry about whether things are TRUE and then fix what is wrong with people, rather than pretend that stereotypes are not the most accurate reprsentation of behavioral data on earth?

    True is true is true is true.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-05 18:46:00 UTC

  • ON “THOUGHT” by Propertarian Frank Thought is a tricky name to use because it’s

    ON “THOUGHT”

    by Propertarian Frank

    Thought is a tricky name to use because it’s too entangled with Platonic assumptions. Tentatively I operationalize it as ordered stimulation (activation of those neural circuitries that normally get stimulated by specific external stimulants, or that are on the activation path of externally observable behavior (thinking a clause is the activation of the circuitry that is antecedent on the path to (1) vocalizing of (2) visualizing associations of, (3) associational perception of , or (4) a combination of other preset modes of action involving the clause in question)). I don’t know if this is correspondent with our current understanding of cognitive science, but I’m confident the end result will look like a variant of this.

    So some of the things (I think) you would call ‘thought’, I classify as action. For instance mentally calculating 567*93 is an action. By vocalizing the correct result, you demonstrate that you can compute it (carry out the operations constituting the action). The idealization of language is due to an artificial separation of mental transformations from demonstrated action. The latter is just a special case of the former.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 19:01:00 UTC

  • CONSCIOUSNESS —“How far back down the complexity spectrum do you think the fun

    CONSCIOUSNESS

    —“How far back down the complexity spectrum do you think the function/structure of consciousness goes?”— A friend

    I think the variation in ‘how far back down’ is in (a) the scale of memory accessed, (b) the sample time between memory accesses.

    And I think consciousness is simply the experience of continuous change in state across the layers (old, middle, new brain).

    My experience with regaining consciousness is extensive and consistent: as each bit of recall is restored, more ‘you’ is restored, and so is the ‘time horizon’ of change in state that you experience that you and I call ‘consciousness’.

    I mean. from that perspective it’s actually pretty simple.

    I am fairly certain this reductio explanation is so close that further refinement will be in the form of precision not falsification.

    At the very deepest level, the first level of awareness, is simply responds to feelings good and bad, but that is all. I like this I don’t like this. Then layer after layer awakens and that basic feeling simply has access to richer and richer content over longer and longer periods.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 15:31:00 UTC

  • “The funny thing is, that we can all be superior in one domain or another.”— M

    —“The funny thing is, that we can all be superior in one domain or another.”— Moritz Bierling

    Well that’s the whole trick now isn’t it? Find one that others want you to be superior in, that no one else is superior in. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 13:21:00 UTC

  • WHY DID PEOPLE RESIST GAY MARRIAGE? I think people fought against homosexuality

    WHY DID PEOPLE RESIST GAY MARRIAGE?

    I think people fought against homosexuality for the following reasons:

    (a) marriage in public prohibits interference which causes high rates of male violence, often resulting in death, the consequences of which export vast cascading costs onto the polity – trust being one of the most important.

    (b) marriage in public asks warranty of non-interference in the marriage and family as a means of preventing the moral hazard of the public carrying the cost of broken families.

    (c) Homosexuality invokes a disgust response in many (very many) people, not the least of which because we do not want to increase ‘marginal cases’.

    (d) homosexuality is of negative evolutionary, familial, value other than labor, and so why does the public need to insure it by means of marriage?

    (e) Without offspring they could signal hyperconsumption more easily, and with two incomes they could signal hyperconsumption more easily

    (f) homosexuals by hyperconsumption, sexual signaling, promiscuity, have demonstrated precisely the public behaviors that we have spent thousands of years removing from the public – precisely so that we could limit risk of violating the marriage and family as means of limiting the export of costs.

    (g) It certainly appears that given all of us contain masculine and feminine traits, and that while in-utero homosexuality is merely a birth defect, various forms of mental illness can result from developmental issues such as bulimia, anorexia, sexual identity, issues. In other words, ‘gender preference’ appears to be, like anorexia and bulimia, a developmental disorder easily corrected by constant exposure to norms. (and therefore without loss of genetic persistence,)

    (h) Genetically (and economically) non-reproducing people who are capable of productivity and self financing of reproduction are dead weight on civilization.

    So externalities are the cause of marriage. homoxexuality does not require the institution of marriage: a corporation for the pooling of assets by which intergenerational reproduction, ‘financing’ and ‘insurance’ are provided.

    Instead homoseuality requires only the formation of a partnership, and universal power of attorney. This is the only legal content of the marriage.

    The question remains whether homosexuals can produced offspring in equal or not worse quality to hterosexuals and the money is against them. Not because some cannot. But because there are too many who cannot.

    So we are running an experiment. I have no idea how it will play out.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 10:00:00 UTC

  • Yes we are smart. Yes we are creative. But what makes us different is that we ar

    Yes we are smart. Yes we are creative. But what makes us different is that we are trustworthy. We are trustworthy either by nature(genetics) or training or both. It is increasingly obvious that it is BOTH. This is why other peoples cannot duplicate the western model. Our trust is a high tax. No other people will pay this tax other than perhaps the Japanese. Why: homogeneity.

    Once you figure it out you realize how much lying is going on under cosmopolitanism. Once we end financial parasitism our ability to exercise our creativity and intelligence and trust will multiply once again. Once we eliminate centralization of the state, our creativity and intelligence will multiply once again.

    Once we are no longer preyed upon our numbers will increase and we will multiply again.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 06:37:00 UTC

  • Poverty and the brain. Hard to judge cause. stress effects yes. but poverty is t

    Poverty and the brain.

    Hard to judge cause. stress effects yes. but poverty is the norm and the question is why are so many people not poor? Intelligence .7, and industriousness .4+ and conscientiousness .4. Prosperity in modernity requires a combination of personality traits of which intelligence is but one. And if any of those traits is inadequate the person cannot succeed in a market economy requiring the service of the needs of others FIRST in order to serve the needs of themselves SECOND. Worse, the cost of educating people at each std deviation of intelligence is dramatically higher, and if accompanied by shortages of necessary personality traits, then it only increases. If we then account for different rates of maturity based on the geography of ethnic origin necessary to fight infant mortality, we run into extremely high costs per individual with extremely low returns, and increasing chances of failure. The uncomfortable truth that we have learned over the past twenty years, is that the prosperity of any people is largely due, not to its smartest, but to the decrease in the population of the underclasses and the extraordinary burden they place on societies. The bottom is a drag on the rest so severe that most gorps of people in non-hostile climates cannot escape it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-03 15:28:00 UTC