Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • WOMEN ARE CAPABLE OF RATIONAL THOUGHT. MEN ARE CAPABLE OF RESPONSIBLE THOUGHT. W

    WOMEN ARE CAPABLE OF RATIONAL THOUGHT. MEN ARE CAPABLE OF RESPONSIBLE THOUGHT.

    Women are capable of understanding rationality. I believe they require different kinds of education from men to achieve rational perspective.

    The problem for women is finding a man that they can trust to provide the instruction. Usually this comes from experience talking with good fathers and brothers.

    Contemporary education consists merely of exercises in social conformity for women, hence the ease with indoctrinating them with socialist propaganda in university courses.

    In conversations on politics and society, conservative women always speak of the opinions of their father and husband with great frequency, they respect these men highly and thus integrate their perspectives.

    I don’t see the problem as women, the true problem is the feminization of men thus creating a society of weak fathers and husbands/boyfriends who validate the emotions of their daughters and wives/girlfriends instead of correcting them through assertive rational instruction on these topics.

    If we have good fathers, brothers, and husbands, women’s will be rational. Just as if we have good women men will be rational.

    We’ve done the opposite.

    Joel Davis

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 13:59:00 UTC

  • Q&A: CURT: WHAT ABOUT POLYGAMY???? EXCELLENT QUESTION! 1) the majority of societ

    Q&A: CURT: WHAT ABOUT POLYGAMY????

    EXCELLENT QUESTION!

    1) the majority of societies allowed for polygamy of one sort or another, but the problem is:

    i) women are damned expensive. so few men can afford them.

    ii) most of the time it exists to absorb excess women for home and farm labor because of a shortage of men due to warfare, much like taking in relatives or god-children. WE forget that through most of history, people died a lot.

    iii) because of the nature of women’s characters they tend to form a hierarchy. There is always a ‘first wife’. And women seem to kill one another in polygamous marriages pretty often.

    iv) normies really, really, really, do not like it in their ‘midst’ because it provides a malincentive to men. Flip it around and having a second wife you fuck now and then (or don’t) is different from having a woman in your midst who you fuck instead of your wife. So polygamy is rarely what we assume it would be through our modern senses. It’s either a means of increasing your children so that you can hold together a monarchy, a sign of ostentatious wealth to display your status and power, a means of supplanting household and farm labor, a means of absorbing excess females, or a means of obtaining additional household sex and labor without discrediting your first wife. The mormon thing is an outlier (because there were a lot of mormon women and not many men) but unfortunately it’s our first reference point.

    v) we aren’t poor enough any longer that people prefer that type of arrangement over having their own apartment and ‘fooling around’. In other words, women have a demonstrated preference for not engaging in polygamy. In fact, as far as we know, humans (out of evolutionary necessity) seem to naturally gravitate to serial marriages. And if the law assisted us in that by eliminating the pretense of permanent marriage and eliminating common marital property (using merely powers of attorney for certain affairs) then we might be able to return to serial marriage more easily. And economically and socially and legally it seems the right answer.

    2) it’s still pairing off: There is still a market exchange made. Otherwise it’s slavery.

    3) if it’s an assigned marriage that violates natural law. The purpose of assigned marriage was traditionally to keep property in the family in propertied civilizations, or to preserve and build family networks prior to propertied civilizations.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 11:40:00 UTC

  • THE MALE FEMALE COMPROMISE (nash vs pareto) (important concept) Women are suppos

    THE MALE FEMALE COMPROMISE

    (nash vs pareto) (important concept)

    Women are supposed to be drawn to socialism. Men are supposed to be drawn to Aristocracy. These are words for the female reproductive strategy and the male reproductive strategy at scale.

    Its when we compromise through markets for marriage, markets for goods and services, markets for commons, and markets for rule, that we achieve the best possible even if it’s not the ideal for each given man or woman.

    Conversely, pursuit of ideals can only occur if we end the compromise between men’s and women’s reproductive strategies.

    Which is what we have been doing for the past century.

    In economic parlance this is the difference between a NATURAL NASH equilibrium that we evolved under, and the UNNATURAL PARETO equilibrium that the socialist state attempts to create through forcible redistribution – violating the contract for compromise between the genders: male and female and the classes: the estates of the realm.

    Paring off into mates (and admittedly cheating now and then) is the optimum evolutionary and social strategy. It creates incentives for the worse performers, and disincentives for greed for the best performers.

    There is a reason we evolved serial monogamy before we developed property and a division of labor, and we evolved monogamy after we developed property and a division of labor.

    That reason is that markets (pairing-off) provide us with the BEST OVERALL solution to our differences in value and ability, even though it doesn’t provide the best solution for either the best or the worst. (and yes, there are bad people that shouldn’t breed).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 09:10:00 UTC

  • An awful lot of bein’ smart is practice

    An awful lot of bein’ smart is practice.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 08:23:00 UTC

  • Intelligence: A Construct in Search of Evidence

    https://t.co/XLPAeUVg8LEmotional Intelligence: A Construct in Search of Evidence.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-02 21:42:00 UTC

  • consciousness consists in our experience of the recursive effect of constinuous

    consciousness consists in our experience of the recursive effect of constinuous perception’s causation of searches and short term memory, and the ‘persistence of vision’ of short term memory.

    What I am unclear about is how we ‘focus’ on choosing between search results.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-02 03:04:00 UTC

  • Jordan Peterson talks about software. I talk about the operating system, bios, a

    Jordan Peterson talks about software. I talk about the operating system, bios, and processor.

    most people talk about the video game.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-02 02:52:00 UTC

  • And it is harder if your self worth and social status are dependent upon preserv

    And it is harder if your self worth and social status are dependent upon preservation of the malinvestment.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 01:37:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804137291111350273

    Reply addressees: @grimsithe @jeffreyatucker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804116030335369216

    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/804116030335369216

  • NOT EVERYONE IS READY TO MOVE FORWARD Ideological malinvestment is extremely dif

    NOT EVERYONE IS READY TO MOVE FORWARD

    Ideological malinvestment is extremely difficult to overcome – it requires rebuilding your conceptual portfolio.

    It’s harder if your malinvestment is in a sentimental, or rational, ideology rather than scientific evidence.

    And it is harder if your self worth and social status are dependent upon preservation of the malinvestment.

    This is why science progresses with the death of the previous generation – status preservation of malinvestment.

    I don’t care what names people call me.Darwin, Newton,Galileo, Aristotle, and Socrates had worse. But True=True.

    Sovereignty exists or not, Liberty is obtained by permission, freedom out of utility, subsidy out of signaling.

    Sovereignty is only possible under the reciprocal insurance of property in toto by the promise of violence.

    And the only institutions that are possible under sovereignty are markets – markets in everything.

    And the only way of producing markets in everything is w/ natural,judge-discovered,common law of non-imposition.

    …non-imposition against property in toto: to total elimination of the incentive to retaliate.

    Tucker is a good person and I have affection for him. Not everyone is ready. They must lose hope in error first.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 20:51:00 UTC

  • Q&A: ON PORN – A LITTLE IS ONE THING, TOO MUCH IS A VERY BAD THING —“Hey Mr. D

    Q&A: ON PORN – A LITTLE IS ONE THING, TOO MUCH IS A VERY BAD THING

    —“Hey Mr. Doolittle. I love your work. If you don’t mind, could you do one of your famous write-ups on the harm of pornography?”—-

    Porn is bad for (most) men really. Cuts our dominance and aggression dramatically, and our ambition along with it; and if you watch it enough it will hurt your libido just like many recreational drugs will hurt your pleasure receptors – perhaps permanently.

    This has largely to do with the problem of novelty. Male arousal is largely a function of novelty. This is why good relationships combine frequent easy ‘nightly’ sex, with ‘novelty’ (like in places we shouldn’t have sex, or having sex under sneaky but fun circumstances.)

    So frequently ‘using’ porn, ‘desensitizes’ your libido and forces you to search for ever increasing novelty to provoke a response. If you do this enough, then it is increasingly difficult to obtain a state of arousal or even ‘interest’ in real life. ESPECIALLY with your stable girlfriend/wife – and this is the problem. You can compensate by avoiding alcohol and pot. You can compensate a bit by physical exercise and competition, but the porn will draw down your desire for it. You can compensate by avoiding it entirely for six months or more. As far as I know you can get past it entirely if you stay away from it for three to four years (which is about duration of the human forgetting curve). But I haven’t seen good data other than about two thirds of men respond positively to long term avoidance of porn.

    (Good research esp, out of Italy.)

    HOWEVER, there is also research to suggest that the drop in crime among those men with TOO MUCH testosterone (you know who) has a lot to do with the availability of free porn, cheap high fat food loaded with MSG, cable television and video games, more so than any other phenomenon.

    And it seems like now-and-then use of porn in your teens, can seriously help release the stress of being a young male. Which honestly, is distracting as hell, and in my memory, was a constant source of aggressive thoughts.

    So you know, it’s one of those good and bad things.

    If you’re in a regular relationship do not use it, and instead, be a little more creative. Porn is a cheap and easy spice for sex with your regular girl. But you pay for the discount. Instead, try higher investment activities: new places, higher risk, more kinky, or the old fashioned way: more sensual and attentive. (Although my generation was over-taught that strategy).

    We have some interesting information from the past few decades of data collection, and it turns out that women like the ‘lower class’ men at times because they ‘think less and feel more’ and do it more aggressively. And just as a woman has a harder time ‘letting go’ in order to ‘get there’, men have to re-learn to ‘let go’ and get her there.

    So when with her friends, love your inner gentleman. When you’re arousing, love your inner romantic, and play the romance game. But when in the heat of it, love your inner Gorilla. Surrender to him. Let him go. Use every drop of strength you have to move her. Girls don’t break all that easily. And most of them like the thrill of it. Just how it is.

    RUN A BIT.

    SPRINT A BIT

    PLAY A LITTLE PAINTBALL

    LIFT VERY HEAVY THINGS WITH YOUR WHOLE BODY

    READ A NON-FICTION BOOK.

    GENTLEMAN/ROMANCE/AND GORILLA THE HELL OUT OF HER.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 11:51:00 UTC