Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • MAYBE YOU’RE DOING IT WITHOUT ME KNOWING Curt.. It’s all very well what Grandin

    MAYBE YOU’RE DOING IT WITHOUT ME KNOWING Curt..

    It’s all very well what Grandin adumbrates but what about people who are visual/spacial, pattern recognizers, AND verbal?

    If someone asks me what I do I usually say I’m a ‘specialist’ because I find something (or two or three things)…build joy for it through specialisation, then do it for many hours a day and make it my life until the improvements diminish. And then onto the next thing. After doing that for a decade or two things kind of flow together and learning new things becomes so easy and quick. Or so it seems in relative terms.

    Someone once asked

    — “What do you specialize in?” —

    And I said

    — ‘Everything.’ —

    They were obviously baffled (although in retrospect, of course, ‘everything’ is technically inaccurate).

    For me these range from artistic (architecture/design) to coordination (combat/sport) to visual/spacial (mapping/[games such as] Go) to verbal (learning the dictionary definition of thousands of words/imitating people’s voices) to pattern recognition (pure maths/coding/chess) to a combination of them in different forms (poker/business/connecting people/project managing/conferences).

    For me, to do any one of these without the others would be holding back expansive nourishment from a ravenous mind – a form of torture.

    Then you get the people with 2 of the three like you (and my best friend from school Sir Edward Townes) – visual/spacial and pattern recognizing. If you are a 10/10 in the abstraction pattern field and 9.5/10 in the visual/spacial the Ed is t’other way around. He can visualize things beyond anyone I have encountered – I am training every day but WAY behind.

    So I suppose my question really is do you not feel like you’re starving your verbal mind by not spending years becoming a writer like Joseph Conrad (who was also ‘autistic’ in the visual/spacial [he was a captain of a ship] and verbal) or H.L.Mencken? And a speaker? You come across well in interviews but I think more practice and a few years could make you a 3/3 trifecta polymath.

    Am I wrong?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 13:32:00 UTC

  • MY THOUGHTS ON : John-Paul Wright / Stefan Molyneux THE LEFT – People on the lef

    MY THOUGHTS ON : John-Paul Wright / Stefan Molyneux

    THE LEFT

    – People on the left score lower than people on the right in self control.

    – Self control (impulsivity) along with IQ, is an ubiquitous predictor of life outcomes.

    – People on the left score higher on aggression than people on the right.

    – Leftists assume through self experience that agency is limited.

    – Criminals overwhelmingly tend to be leftists.

    – Justify and glamorize anti-social violence (rebels, criminals, political deceit)

    – Moral Specialization (motherhood)

    – Left academia is engaged in ADVOCACY not in CRITICISM. (lying)

    THE RIGHT

    – The right is more conscientious, less impulsive, less aggressive, has greater assumption of agency, and far lower criminality.

    – Justify and glamorize pro-social violence (war, police, sheriff, heroism).

    – Moral Generalization(‘tribal-hood’)

    – Right academia is engaged in criticism, not advocacy.

    TIME PREFERENCES

    – The right is empirical(skeptical) ‘show me, so that we know the consequences first.’

    – The right self corrects and prosecutes its own members.

    – The left is rational(optimistic) ‘just do it and figure out the consequences later’

    – The left ‘forgets’ rather than self-corrects, and ‘reframes’ its own members.

    INARGUABLE CORRELATIONS

    There are two of the strongest correlations in social science:

    1) impulsivity and aggression

    2) stereotypes.

    The left lies about these two factors consistently.

    ORIGINS

    – Women need to be impulsive since the cost of child rearing is irrationally high.

    – Women must invest heavily in children so they advance them regardless of their merit (denial).

    – Women who are married with children develop conservative political positions.

    – Women who are married with more than two children develop most conservative political positions because they are unable to fantasize given the evidence before them.

    CONSEQUENCES

    1. the left produces a kleptocratic order (female strategy)

    2. it’s necessary for women to employ a kleptocratic (parasitic) strategy given the asymmetry of costs of reproduction.

    3. gender biases can cross genders, and do, so men demonstrate the same parasitic strategy when they cannot compete without doing so.

    4. some individuals adopt these biases for signaling purposes.

    5. the only method of improving a society is to reduce the number of the impulsive (leftists). A leftist society will always degenerate.

    6. the method of decreasing the possibility of leftist action is rule of natural law.

    7. the method of decreasing the number of leftist actors is by limiting the reproduction of leftist actors.

    8. the method of increasing the number of rightist actors is by retention of the results of their productivity when allocated to reproduction, and subsidy of their reproduction if possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 09:24:00 UTC

  • THE CHORD OF ELITES – PROPERTARIAN CLASS THEORY

    THE CHORD OF ELITES – PROPERTARIAN CLASS THEORY

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 11:46:00 UTC

  • I use class as a {set} of values: CLASS: } ….genetic class (physical symmetry,

    I use class as a {set} of values:

    CLASS:

    }

    ….genetic class (physical symmetry, health, intelligence etc)

    ….reproductive class (reproductive desirability)

    ….associative class (associative cooperative desirability)

    ….social class (regional ethnicity, family structure, values, manners, ethics, morals, traditions, myths)

    ….occupational class (occupational achievement)

    ….economic class (economic achievement)

    ….political class (fame: entertainment / political achievement)

    }

    The effects of each class are cumulative.

    It’s pretty scary how accurate this measure is.

    I don’t weight economic or political at all – they’re outliers.

    If you want to create a simulation you start with this model and build out.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 11:45:00 UTC

  • Upper social class: Discuss Power, Associations, Opportunities. My social class(

    Upper social class: Discuss Power, Associations, Opportunities.

    My social class(upper middle/lower upper): Discuss ideas. Excellences. Possibilities.

    The next social class(middle): discuss events, biz, possessions. travel.

    The next social class (working): discuss sports, family, experiences

    The next social class (proletarian): discuss people.

    all the old italian guys in my range of hearing are showing off family, the way other people show of new cars or houses, the way I show off ideas, the way others show off power and opportunities.

    The proles make me crazy, and sports are an opiate that tires me, but I’m big on the middle and working class.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 11:05:00 UTC

  • ARE WE GOOD OR BAD? People are rational. Choosing to ‘be good’ is in many people

    ARE WE GOOD OR BAD?

    People are rational.

    Choosing to ‘be good’ is in many people’s interest – at least in the long term.

    But choosing to ‘be bad’ is in many other people’s interest – at least in the short term.

    The principle problem in expanding the size of the good, is that each individual who chooses to be bad has greater influence upon others’ ability to choose to be good, than each individual who chooses to be good has influence upon those who choose to be bad.

    In other words, roughly speaking, every person at the bottom is six times as costly as the benefits created by every person at the top. For the simple reason that discouragement, gossip, threat and failure spread fear of risk faster and farther than encouragement, compliment, opportunity and success.

    There is nothing to be done about human nature.

    All we can do is make it very difficult to be bad.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 10:40:00 UTC

  • People are rational. Choosing to ‘be good’ is in many people’s interest – at lea

    People are rational.

    Choosing to ‘be good’ is in many people’s interest – at least in the long term.

    But choosing to ‘be bad’ is in many other people’s interest – at least in the short term.

    The principle problem in expanding the size of the good, is that each individual who chooses to be bad has greater influence upon others’ ability to choose to be good, than each individual who chooses to be good has influence upon those who choose to be bad.

    In other words, roughly speaking, every person at the bottom is six times as costly as the benefits created by every person at the top. For the simple reason that discouragement, gossip, threat and failure spread fear of risk faster and farther than encouragement, compliment, opportunity and success.

    There is nothing to be done about human nature.

    All we can do is make it very difficult to be bad.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 10:38:00 UTC

  • (OMG I just figured out how to talk about how deception by suggestion works on u

    (OMG I just figured out how to talk about how deception by suggestion works on us ….. And why (thank you) stoicism is the most important PERSONAL defense against information crime, as natural law is the most important defense against INTERPERSONAL crime.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-07 20:09:00 UTC

  • yeah, I use lower middle as well because I distinquish between high proletarians

    yeah, I use lower middle as well because I distinquish between high proletarians and lower middle. But mostly the same.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-01 18:45:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815629970194231296

    Reply addressees: @Madisox

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815628306645217280

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Madisox

    Top out-of-sight
    Upper
    Upper Middle
    —-
    Middle Class
    High Proletarian
    Mid Proletarian
    Low Proletarian
    —
    Destitute
    Bottom Out-of-Sight

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815628306645217280

  • THE CENTURY OF MADWOMEN As far as I can tell, the left’s liberalism, anti-famili

    THE CENTURY OF MADWOMEN

    As far as I can tell, the left’s liberalism, anti-familialism, school-anarchism, and ‘tolerance’ has produced a vast increase in mental illness the origin of which is simply the prohibition that we demand discipline from one another.

    When I travel the world this is the main difference between our culture and others. We are not more progressive or more tolerant, we are simply failing to educate the human animal to funciton as a member of a polity – and they’re going insane in vast numbers because of it.

    I see this as the ultimate expression of the feminine: to escape accountability for the management of her impulses. And what is the reason? Women evolved to have children in their teens where those impulses are governed by the offsetting demand to care for children.

    We have created madwomen in vast numbers.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-31 13:15:00 UTC