Curt Doolittle

Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science

  • ( I don’t argue against genes. I argue against deceit, information, culture, and

    ( I don’t argue against genes. I argue against deceit, information, culture, and class. As far as I know, all groups can transcend.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-31 07:49:00 UTC

  • WHY WE FAILED. All men are comprehensible. All men are rational within their lim

    WHY WE FAILED.

    All men are comprehensible.

    All men are rational within their limits.

    And as rational we choose what is in our interests whether moral or immoral.

    And we create institutions that increase the cost of the immoral.

    So that it is rational to choose the moral.

    The problem of the twentieth century is that we eliminated the normative prohibition on libel, slander, ridicule, shaming, rallying, lying, pseudoscience, and propaganda.

    And caused the industrialisation of profiting from error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, propaganda, rallying, shaming, and deceit.

    The reason for our failure is visible in retrospect as an inability to switch from traditional and moral justification in societies with relationships at human scale, to warranty of due diligence by thorough criticism of statements pertaining to cause and consequence when relationships exceeded human scale under the industrial revolution.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-30 10:26:00 UTC

  • RT @hbdchick: “small genetic differences between groups can lead to large phenot

    RT @hbdchick: “small genetic differences between groups can lead to large phenotypic differences….” https://twitter.com/hbdchick/status/769904624950251520

  • hbd chick (@hbdchick): “small genetic differences between groups can lead to lar

    https://t.co/DX5SSxqyvgRetweeted hbd chick (@hbdchick):

    “small genetic differences between groups can lead to large phenotypic differences….”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-29 01:43:00 UTC

  • GIVING OTHER MEN ‘PERMISSION’ (cute story) I was with Liliya and the boys the ot

    GIVING OTHER MEN ‘PERMISSION’

    (cute story)

    I was with Liliya and the boys the other day, and we were in a chocolate shop, letting the kids choose which piece of identically flavored but different shaped chocolate that they wanted. (The older one is a bit greedy and impulsive so he wants to see if he can get more than one out of me – knowing I am a sucker – but I’m adamant that they get only one.)

    So I’m standing there as usual typing away on my iPhone and this young couple, maybe twenty years old, is all mushy and romantic in the corner, and just as I look up, I catch his eyes – he subconsciously wants to make sure he hasn’t impugned his masculinity somehow as he returns to reality.

    So I smile and start laughing. Give him a thumbs up. Grab Lilia and kiss her. Saying “See. It’s ok. If we all do it.”

    They know enough English to understand. And we each chuckle for a few minutes.

    If you only seek to ENTERTAIN, not to OBTAIN, you can make the world a better place.

    Little things matter. Because little things in large numbers have vast consequences.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-28 05:07:00 UTC

  • A LESSON FOR WESTERN MEN IN THE MEANING OF CHARACTER (important lesson) When an

    A LESSON FOR WESTERN MEN IN THE MEANING OF CHARACTER

    (important lesson)

    When an average middle aged Ukrainian male gets the opportunity to talk with an American man who does not judge him, (and who has a laptop for translation) he acts like a man who has found water in the desert. He just wants “to understand”. But really, he want’s to know that he is ‘ok’. That his poor life is a property of circumstance, and not character. (it is a product of circumstance)

    When a young Ukrainian male gets the opportunity to speak with us, he desperately seeks opportunity.

    When a young Ukrainian female gets the opportunity to speak with us, it’s not quite as impressive, since she probably worked very hard to learn English.

    When an uncultured young Ukrainian female gets the opportunity to speak with us, she is looking for an ATM and a Passport.

    These people are deprived of EXPERIENCES that fiat credit makes possible in a functioning society with rule of law.

    I love all of them, and my compassion for their plight is endless.

    LESSON FOR WESTERN MEN

    The Ukrainian men are poor, and their government corrupt, because the militant right is simply not large enough, to kill enough politicians to stop them.

    There are endless mercenaries who will fight a civil war on behalf of the oligarchs. (This is the fear of everyone here. civil war.)

    There are a limited number of men (like us) in every civilization, that will fight for the NATION.

    If you do not fight for the nation, you become one of those middle and late age men thinking you were of good character.

    BUT BEING OF GOOD CHARACTER MEANS KILLING THOSE WHO NEED KILLING ON THE BEHALF OF YOUR NATION.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-28 04:54:00 UTC

  • ( Madness is underrated. I mean, The autism spectrum is very good for producing

    ( Madness is underrated. I mean, The autism spectrum is very good for producing genius for the purpose of avoiding madness. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 12:26:00 UTC

  • “STEREOTYPES ARE ONE OF THE MOST ACCURATE PHENOMENON IN SOCIAL SCIENCE” (just st

    “STEREOTYPES ARE ONE OF THE MOST ACCURATE PHENOMENON IN SOCIAL SCIENCE”

    (just stick with that meme for a few years.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 09:26:00 UTC

  • WORDS AND IDEAS AS RISKY BEHAVIOR I understand. Some people want to experiment w

    WORDS AND IDEAS AS RISKY BEHAVIOR

    I understand. Some people want to experiment with physical risk, some with sexual risk, some with chemical risk, and some of us with verbal risk. In other words, we all want to obtain stimuli from exploring new sensations with the method of sensory acquisition that’s most rewarding for us. When you take physical risk of skydiving or surfing it’s likely that you’ll hurt only unless you get a rescue worker harmed trying to save you. When you experiment with sexual risk, you can spread disease, or interfere with relationships and families. When you take chemical risk you can hurt yourself, but you can also use machines and vehicles, or even words, that bring you and others to harm. When you experiment with words and ideas you can bring yourself to harm, you can speak and bring others to harm, and if you’re very good at it, and promote or publish it, you can cause the deaths of more people than anything other than the great plagues.

    We all want to ignore external costs to others. We all want to say our pursuits of stimulation are not harmful to others. But it’s always false.

    What’s counter-intuitive, is that the most dangerous things you can do to others is to promote damaging ideas.

    The only worse thing you can do is engineer contagious diseases.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 05:34:00 UTC

  • PSYCHOLOGISM VS INCENTIVES I tend to ignore psychological states, and stick with

    PSYCHOLOGISM VS INCENTIVES

    I tend to ignore psychological states, and stick with observed actions, since reported ‘belief’ and demonstrated behavior are so widely different. So I would say you can insure something yourself at which point you do not have rights or property, only things under your control given the amount of resistance you can put up, versus when you and your possessions are insured by a group, where you have rights to call upon them to increase the amount of resistance you can put up.

    As David Mondrus has suggested, this is the dividing line between libertarianism and propertarianism.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 05:13:00 UTC